ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Jobcentre Plus

Linda Gilroy: What assessment he has made of how Jobcentre Plus in Devon and Cornwall is responding to the increase in demand for its services arising from the recession.

James Purnell: Jobcentre Plus in Devon and Cornwall continues to perform well despite rising work loads. New jobseeker's allowance claims are being cleared within target. Jobcentre Plus is increasing staffing and ensuring it has the office and infrastructure capacity it needs to respond to the current economic situation.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which certainly chimes with what district manager, Phil Weeks, told me when I met him recently. However, given the pressure and the great need among our constituents for the service, is my right hon. Friend absolutely confident that there are sufficient resources for us to be on the front foot not only now, but during the forthcoming, important months?

James Purnell: Yes, I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are recruiting 6,000 extra people for Jobcentre Plus, 4,000 of whom have already been recruited. Thanks to that and the work that Jobcentre Plus staff are doing, we are processing claims in 10 days, compared with 13 days two years ago, and performance is up, even though more work is going through. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in thanking Jobcentre Plus staff for all the work that they are doing.

Adrian Sanders: Given that, within Devon and Cornwall, unemployment has risen faster in my constituency than anywhere else, I have visited staff at my local Jobcentre Plus, who are doing a fantastic job. However, is there any possibility of reopening Jobcentre Plus in Paignton? Frankly, the Torquay centre is becoming overwhelmed with the ever-rising number of people out of work.

James Purnell: If there are specific issues in Torquay, I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me about them. Overall, however, we believe that the system is performing well—phone calls are being answered in a minute, and we are processing people's claims faster than we were when unemployment was low. The key is for us to make sure that the system is flexible enough to respond to the high level of claims. We must also bring in extra help. We are, for example, bringing in extra training at six months so that people do not go from being short-term unemployed to long-term unemployed if they can get back into work with that extra help. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has congratulated Jobcentre Plus staff and I shall pass his words on to the chief executive.

Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's constituency is a bit far north of Devon and Cornwall, but we will hear what he has to say.

Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems facing Jobcentre Plus in the south-west, as elsewhere, is the lack of jobs to offer claimants who want to work? Is he not disturbed, as I am, that up to last month the Government allowed in 150,000 skilled workers on their work permit scheme without those jobs having been tested and advertised first in the Jobcentre Plus network in the south-west and elsewhere? Will my right hon. Friend contact the Home Office and the Treasury this day to get that rule changed so that no one from the rest of the world is allowed to work in this country on a skilled-work permit until the jobs have been advertised in Jobcentre Plus?

James Purnell: We have already said that that is exactly what we are going to do; jobs at tier 2 will be advertised in Jobcentre Plus. However, it is important that we recognise two things. It is now harder for people to find work and there are fewer vacancies, so we need to provide people with more help. However, we should also say that we should not give up on the notion of people finding work; more than 200,000 people left JSA last month. We need to recognise that times are tougher and to make sure that we do not give up on people, but help them get work—by providing them with more help, rather than cutting it.

Gary Streeter: I add my thanks to the hard-working staff at Plymouth Jobcentre Plus, many of whom are my constituents; they are coping well with the current crisis.
	With the benefit of hindsight and given that unemployment in Plymouth has risen by 53 per cent. in the past 12 months, was it not a crass error of judgment to close Plympton jobcentre? That has simply added more pressure to staff in the centre of the city.

James Purnell: Not at all. We wanted to modernise the service and we would have done that whatever the level of unemployment. We merged Benefits Agency and Employment Service offices so that when people sign on, they have to look for work as well. That process was recommended and praised by not just the National Audit Office, but the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who commended the modernisation as a model big public sector project of its kind. The modernisation has been done precisely to improve the service for people, and it has improved.
	In Plymouth, we are processing claims in 10 days, which is a significant improvement on two years ago. We are able to do that because of the modernisation programme, which has made the system more efficient and released resources so that there can be more front line advisers and we can give better help to people. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman's party supported efficiency, but obviously it does not.

Julia Goldsworthy: Many of my constituents claim child benefit through their local Jobcentre Plus office, but they report delays of three to four months in processing claims, which has a knock-on effect on many other benefits. What can the Secretary of State say to assure those people that there will be joined-up thinking across Departments and local authorities to ensure that people get the support, whichever Department it comes from, exactly when they need it?

James Purnell: The hon. Lady makes an important point. She may know that we have been conducting a pilot with the Local Government Association and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to look at how we can provide a single place for claiming benefits from HMRC, housing benefit and benefits from us. That has been so successful that we are now rolling it out around the country. She makes exactly the right point: people should have a convenient service whereby they can go into Jobcentre Plus and claim all those benefits in one place.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Robert Wilson: How many jobseeker's allowance claimants there were in (a) the UK and (b) Reading, East constituency at the latest date for which figures are available.

Tony McNulty: In January 2009, there were 1,282,645 jobseeker's allowance claimants in the UK and 1,585 in Reading, East constituency. Those numbers are based on seasonally unadjusted figures.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he ask his colleague, the Secretary of State, to guarantee two things when he visits Jobcentre Plus in my constituency tomorrow? First, will he guarantee to its hard-working staff that Reading jobcentre will not join the 38 jobcentres that have been closed by this Government? Secondly, could he explain to my constituent, Chris Richman, why he may soon be able to claim £300 for a new suit for an interview but is refused an advance of the travel costs to get to an interview?

Tony McNulty: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will get the same warm welcome at Reading Jobcentre Plus as I did when I was there quite recently. I gave the assurance then that not only would it remain open but that it, along with all the others, will get what it needs in terms of people, as well as other resources, to carry on doing the splendid job it is doing. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I therefore assume that he is against what we have announced on the £300.

Brian Iddon: On yesterday's "Politics Show", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked whether he could live on £60.50 a week jobseeker's allowance. I can tell him that it is almost impossible for someone to do that if they are feeding themselves properly, paying their utility bills, especially throughout this winter, and have commitments such as direct debits or standing orders for contents insurance. A close member of my family is on jobseeker's allowance, and if I were not topping it up—indeed, almost doubling it—he would not have a decent standard of living. I plead with my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider raising it when Budget time comes around.

Tony McNulty: We have already announced that jobseeker's allowance will go up in April; I am not sure if it is by 5 per cent. or 6.3 per cent. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, very few people are required to live on jobseeker's allowance alone; with a combination of other benefits, they will always be getting significantly more than that. I take my hon. Friend's point, none the less. We have modernised and put efficiencies into the Jobcentre Plus network to try to get people back into work at the earliest opportunity.

Tony Baldry: The average age of engineers on the London underground is now 58. I have a large number of automotive engineers on my patch who have just been made redundant at prodrive—excellent guys with good engineering skills. What will the Department for Work and Pensions do with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and other Departments to try to ensure that where skills that are needed in one part of the country are available in another part, there is a match-up? At the moment, London Underground appears not to be able to recruit new engineers. It seems daft that we have very good young automotive engineers in one part of the country, yet we are preparing for the 2012 Olympics in London, including work on Crossrail, with an average age of 58 on the London underground. Why cannot we use engineers from the west midlands here in London?

Tony McNulty: I am sorry if I looked perplexed, but the hon. Gentleman is down to ask Question 11 and I was not expecting him to jump up quite so readily. He has now missed the excellent answer that I had for him on his own question.
	Through what we are doing with DIUS and other Departments, and with Train to Gain, we are considering precisely that sort of skills mismatch in various parts of the country. To be perfectly fair to him, the Mayor of London, whose name escapes me for the moment, announced recently that efforts are being made to join up what is being done in recruitment and apprenticeships to the greater advantage of not only the London labour market but those beyond. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, and I shall certainly take it up with the Mayor of London next time I see him.

Rob Marris: It is very sad that in the face of the world recession, unemployment under this Government has now reached the level that it was at in 1997 when they came into power. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this Government will not abandon the International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment, and will not seek to cook the books on unemployment statistics, which the previous Government did on 19 occasions?

Tony McNulty: If I had the time, I would go through the 19 times when the previous Government cooked the books. We have recognised the ILO's figures and what they measure, and we are quite happy on a month-by-month basis to take full account of those figures as well as the JSA claimant count, which clearly measures something entirely different.

Greg Mulholland: The Minister will be well aware, as is every jobcentre in the country, of the real pressure that is being put on front-line staff. That makes the ill-advised programme of cuts that we have seen very ill thought through. Reports are circulating that people are being taken away from other areas, such as disability and child maintenance benefits. Will the Minister assure the House that those people will not suffer to plug the jobseeker's allowance gap?

Tony McNulty: As part of the overall rationalisation and greater efficiency of Jobcentre Plus, and in the context of everything that the Department has done, more and more staff were going to be moved from those areas to the front line anyway. That will not in any way damage the integrity of the front line in those services. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I shall take his point about ill-advised closures with the fatuity that was implied in it.

David Taylor: The unemployment rate in North-West Leicestershire has risen quite substantially in recent months. From a rate of 2.5 per cent., which put us in the lowest quartile of UK constituencies, it has risen by 40 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. That has included the closures of United Biscuits at Ashby and, worryingly, the long-standing firm of Pegson in Coalville. Will the Minister be willing to see me to discuss that run-down of staff, which includes their transferring to the firm's country of ownership? I want to check that the firm is operating within EU guidelines.

Tony McNulty: As my hon. Friend well knows, I am always very happy to see him.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State has kindly invited hon. Members to a seminar next week on the personalisation of the welfare system. What personal service can jobseekers expect, given that even after the current round of recruitment there will still be 10,000 fewer people working in jobcentres than there were four years ago, with rapidly rising unemployment?

Tony McNulty: But with more and more on the front line doing precisely what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggests—providing a greater personalisation of service, focused on the individual. Given the hon. Gentleman's question, my only point about the seminar is that he should attend it and listen.

Kerry McCarthy: I have been contacted by a constituent who is concerned that the announcement of a Government package to help senior executives who have lost their jobs to get off jobseeker's allowance and back into work indicates that we are not concerned about other people who have lost their jobs. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we will make equal efforts to help anybody who has lost their job in the current downturn to find work again?

Tony McNulty: As was rather implied by the last question, we are seeking to personalise the service more to each individual. If there are gaps because of what the current recession has presented us with, we will seek to fill them. It is new to have executives coming through the system, and Jobcentre Plus needs to respond to that. However, we respond to each and every individual in their own terms.
	Just as important, from my perspective, are those who up until now have been very successful in work. When people present at the jobcentre having been successfully in work for 15, 20 or 25 years, they need to be treated very differently in the initial encounter from someone who presents there regularly. I can assure my hon. Friend that we seek to provide the best service for each and every person who presents to Jobcentre Plus.

Theresa May: On 25 November, the Secretary of State said that
	"we are today announcing a moratorium on Jobcentre Plus closures".—[ Official Report, 25 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 620.]
	Does the moratorium still stand?

Tony McNulty: Yes.

Theresa May: It is a funny sort of moratorium on Jobcentre Plus closures that allows jobcentres to continue to close. When the Secretary of State announced that moratorium, people assumed that it meant that no more jobcentres would close, but jobcentres in Orpington, Brixton and Feltham are closing. The one in Orpington will close on 1 April. People will have to travel to Bromley, where the jobcentre is already struggling to cope with the numbers. There are queues and people are getting only a three-minute interview with a personal adviser. Moreover, the Government will have to pay to extend the jobcentre in Bromley to cope with the increased numbers. Are the Government genuinely that incompetent or do they just take people for fools?

Tony McNulty: There is only one fool in the room. The right hon. Lady's predecessor said on 25 November:
	"Guess how many they were planning to close next year? Three. Some moratorium.—[ Official Report, 25 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 622.]
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) knew in November that those three jobcentres were already scheduled for closure and not among the 25 that were announced as part of the moratorium. He got it in November; we are now in March—give her a bit of time and the right hon. Lady will get it, too.

Pensioners (Living Standards)

John Robertson: What additional steps the Department has considered taking to support pensioners who are dependent on interest from their savings accounts to maintain their standard of living; and if he will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: As well as protecting pensioners who are savers by preventing the collapse of the banks, this year we also added £60 to pensioners' Christmas bonus, increased winter fuel payments and tripled cold weather payments.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. She is right—we have done quite a bit for pensioners, but many still have problems with their savings. In some cases, with interest rates going down, savings will not match the needs for which they have to pay. What do the Government intend to do to help those people? Is there more in the pipeline for them? Will she assure me that, even though half do not pay tax, the rest will be looked after, and that we will ensure that they do not suffer, especially towards the end of the year when winter approaches again?

Rosie Winterton: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Obviously, we all feel sorry for people who are affected by the economic downturn. I confirm that half the pensioners who are over 65 do not pay tax. We have taken a series of measures to get real help to people now, when it counts. That is why we focused especially on the extra money for the winter fuel payments and the Christmas bonus. Although last year approximately £8 million was paid out in cold weather payments, the figure this year is £209 million.

Mark Field: Is the Minister satisfied and happy about the balance between the pain that borrowers endure and the pain that savers suffer during the recession?

Rosie Winterton: As I said, we have tried to get help to pensioners, especially through the extra winter fuel payments and the Christmas bonus. Compared with 1997, when the Government came to power, the average pensioner is about £1,600 a year better off and the most vulnerable pensioners are about £2,200 better off. If we had continued with the 1997 Tory Government's policies, we would spend £13 billion less on pensioners.

Anne Begg: There has always been a mismatch between the assumed income that pensioners can receive from their savings and the interest that they could receive. Now that interest rates are so low, has the time come for the Government to re-examine pensioners' assumed income from their savings? Obviously, there is no way in which they will get the assumed amount.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is talking about the 10 per cent. rule—the social tariff. The Conservative Government introduced tariff income in legislation in 1987. It was never linked to interest rates; an assumption was made about a sum that could reasonably be expected to contribute to weekly income. Instead of assuming £1 for every £250, as the Tory Government did, we assume £1 for every £500. In addition, under the Conservative Government, no savings over £6,000 were allowed. We have raised that so that there is no limit on the amount of savings people can have if they are to access savings credit.

Nigel Waterson: May I join the Minister down memory lane? Does she remember these words:
	"The current system penalises pensioners who have prudently built up capital...by assuming pensioners get unrealistically high returns"?
	She should recognise them, because they were in her Government's consultation paper in 2000. Will she now revisit that unfair rule, which is causing extra hardship to hundreds of thousands of pensioners who have been prudent enough to save during their working lives?

Rosie Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the regulations were introduced or whether he opposed them under the previous Conservative Government. I do not remember that, so perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. We felt that the previous system was unfair, particularly the £6,000 cut-off point, at which no savings were taken into account, so we ignore the first £6,000 of savings. We ask people to contribute a small amount above that, but we have also made the rules more generous than they were under the previous Conservative Government.

Natascha Engel: What does my right hon. Friend say to pensioners who had low incomes during their working lives, who put something aside for a rainy day and who use the interest on savings to make essential repairs, but who otherwise live a hand-to-mouth existence? How is she promoting all the work that she says she is doing to make them feel that it is not as unfair as they feel it is?

Rosie Winterton: One of the things we have done is raise personal allowances for older people, so that more than half of all people over 65 do not pay any tax. In addition, through the pension credit system we have tried to target money on the most vulnerable—those who perhaps saved a little bit, but who were penalised under the previous Government because of the little bit of money they had saved. We have changed the system so that it does not a punitive effect on the very people whom my hon. Friend talks about.

Jobseeker's Allowance

David Jones: How many claimants of jobseeker's allowance there were in (a) the UK and (b) Clwyd, West constituency on the latest date for which figures are available.

James Purnell: In January 2009, there were 1,282,645 jobseeker's allowance claimants in the UK and 1,403 in Clwyd, West constituency. Those numbers are based on seasonally unadjusted figures.

David Jones: The Secretary of State may know that the Indesit-Hotpoint factory in Bodelwyddan, which employs 305 people, is due to close at the end of July. That will be a serious blow to an area with very little other manufacturing industry. The factory union has arranged an advisory day on 22 May, with a view to helping the workers deal with the financial consequences of the closure. Will the Secretary of State encourage the local Jobcentre Plus office to attend the event to give the workers the benefit of its experience and as much advice as possible in dealing with this severe blow for them and their families?

James Purnell: Yes, I am aware of those redundancies. I believe that we are still in the 90-day consultation period. I will ensure that we attend as part of the rapid response service. We will also want to work with the union and the Welsh Assembly Government, who have a good scheme—the ProAct-ReAct scheme—to ensure that we can get help that enables people to get back into work as quickly as possible.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) makes a perfectly reasonable point. One of the difficulties in our area is that the travel-to-work area crosses the Welsh border and reaches into Chester and my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in engaging with the work, the DWP takes into account the travel-to-work area and ensures that advice is given that crosses the border properly?

James Purnell: Yes; indeed, I met the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister recently to do exactly that, because the Welsh Assembly has some devolved responsibilities in this matter. We want to ensure that the offer that we have in place is seamless across the border. There are some differences between the Welsh schemes and our schemes, so that will be a challenge, but we are working closely together to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants.

Hywel Williams: The claimant count in Clwyd, West has gone up by 40 per cent. in the last year and the number of vacancies posted has gone down by two thirds. The same figures pertain to my own Caernarfon constituency. Is the Secretary of State aware that the director of CBI Wales, David Rosser, said on Friday:
	"We believe the Welsh Assembly Government's response to the credit crunch has been the quickest and most comprehensive of any devolved government in the UK."?
	What lessons can the right hon. Gentleman's Department learn from the success of the Labour/Plaid Cymru Government in Cardiff?

James Purnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that unusually friendly question. I can reassure him that we have learned directly from the ProAct-ReAct scheme. We think that this is the right approach, bringing about at its heart extra training opportunities and extra employment subsidies. That is exactly what we have done with our six-month offer, which will come into force in April, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are working closely together and I hope that that will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and all the people of Wales.

Mark Harper: In response to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in last Tuesday's unemployment debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were still committed to rolling out the flexible new deal on 1 October. On the same day, however, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform said that the Government still aimed to do that, but acknowledged that, given the time slippage and delay in the Government's issuing of contracts, there were concerns about whether bidders would be able to hit the timetable. Bidders have been asked to indicate in their tender submissions whether they can hit it, but given the Minister's acknowledgement of these concerns will the Secretary of State tell us about the Government's contingency plan?

James Purnell: We are still committed to October. In the same way as Jobcentre Plus had to amend its proposals in the light of the downturn, so must our providers. The reason the hon. Gentleman is raising questions about delivery is to distract from the fact that he will be cutting £2 billion from the employment budget, just on employment benefit—

Mark Harper: Nonsense.

James Purnell: It is not nonsense; it is the truth. The Conservatives have a policy of opposing the fiscal boost, so they need to own up to the consequences, which will mean cutting help for people just at the time unemployment is rising. We will not repeat that mistake, which was their mistake in the '80s and '90s.

Departmental File Stores

Gordon Prentice: Whether agency workers are used by Capita for its contracted work in his Department's file stores.

Jonathan R Shaw: Agency workers are employed by Capita for contracted work at all Department for Work and Pensions file stores. The number of agency staff employed can vary according to the specific project activities required by DWP. Capita undertakes strict security verification checks on all employed staff. DWP and Capita both take the handling and security of all data extremely seriously, and we have robust procedures in place that we review regularly.

Gordon Prentice: Ten million files are in the file store in my Pendle constituency, so I want the Minister to reassure me that no one handling the sensitive files has a criminal record. I also want him to tell me that he does not take everything on trust from Capita, but that the Department carries out spot checks in the file store— because my spies are everywhere!

Jonathan R Shaw: Right, well, we know where one of them is, anyway. I can assure my hon. Friend that DWP continues to review the processes. He wants to be certain that proper procedures are in place regarding the files in the office in his constituency and in others throughout the country. We are about to undertake a further audited internal review, in which we will look at security infrastructure processes, staff recruitment—both permanent and casual—security checks and procedures for staff training and compliance and monitoring processes. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend—and he can bring along his associates if he wishes—to discuss the outcome of that review. We take it seriously; it is ongoing; and I would be happy to discuss it when it is completed.

Citizens' Pension

Douglas Carswell: If he will consider the merits of introducing a pensions system in the UK based on the principles of the citizens' pension system in New Zealand.

Rosie Winterton: We did consider it, but, like the Pensions Commission, concluded that because of the complexity and expense that its introduction would involve, it was not the right approach for the United Kingdom.

Douglas Carswell: Given that the Minister has ruled out the citizens' pension on the grounds of its extraordinary cost, does she agree that it is pure fantasy politics for the Liberal Democrats to pretend that it is a feasible alternative?

Rosie Winterton: I thought it was the Conservatives' policies that were fantasy, but I am happy to describe all the Opposition parties' policies as fantasy land.
	The obvious problem with the Liberal Democrats' policy is that it rules out the possibility of conveying help to the most vulnerable people. Without any element of means-testing, it is very difficult to help those people. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, once again, the Liberal Democrats have come up with an idea that is no solution. It represents, perhaps, the same level of thinking as that of their leader, who believed that the basic state pension was £30 a week.

Andrew Love: Even given the introduction of personal accounts, a fair amount of evidence is emerging to suggest that in the next generation and the generation after that, significant numbers of retired people will be living in poverty. Is my right hon. Friend aware of that, and has any research been carried out that might lead to action that ensures that future generations can live in dignity?

Rosie Winterton: I am sure my hon. Friend will know that as a result of the pension reforms that we are introducing, some 9 million people who have not been able to gain access to second pensions will have that access because of automatic enrolment. Let me also draw his attention to a European Commission report published last week, which stated that while in 1997 pensioner incomes in this country were 15 per cent. below the European average, they are now 9 per cent. above it.

Jobseeker's Allowance

David Gauke: How many jobseeker's allowance claimants there were in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the South-West Hertfordshire constituency on the latest date for which figures are available.

Tony McNulty: As I said earlier, in January 2009, there were 1,282,645 jobseeker's allowance claimants in the UK and 1,006 in the South-West Hertfordshire constituency. Those numbers are based on seasonally unadjusted figures.

David Gauke: Given the OECD's prediction that unemployment in the UK will rise higher and faster than that in any of the other G7 countries, does the Minister believe that the UK economy was best placed to withstand a recession?

Tony McNulty: We are not in the game of making predictions about unemployment. There are many forecasts about where unemployment and, indeed, the economy may well go, but our job is to ensure that there is help and support for each and every person who is unemployed. In that context, the Jobcentre Plus network is very well placed.

Mark Pritchard: Both the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have referred several times today to the ProAct scheme, which helps to subsidise wages and training in many companies in Wales but is not available to companies in England. Will the Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State—we have worked together well on other occasions—agree to meet me, and other midlands Members of Parliament, to discuss how the scheme could be extended to England so that we can reduce the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance and keep people in work?

Tony McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman chooses to visit his local Jobcentre Plus on 6 April, he will see that the scheme is part of the six-month offer.

James Clappison: Evidence from all quarters now suggests that there are many more jobseekers than there are vacancies advertised in jobcentres or vacancies in the economy as a whole—not least in the Secretary of State's own constituency, where there are 18 jobseekers for every vacancy in the jobcentres.
	I welcome the fact that Ministers have now given up on the complacent assertions that they were making until recently about the number of vacancies in the economy. I include the Secretary of State, who was making such assertions until very recently. Now that those Ministers have woken up to the reality that is faced by so many of our constituents who are having to visit jobcentres, may I invite them to give jobseekers the best possible opportunity to fill vacancies by making available to them the personalised employment programme that we have said should be provided at a much earlier stage in the handling of a claim than it does under the Government's plans?

Tony McNulty: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are more than aware of the reality facing people in this country. If there is any complacency, assertion and smugness, it resides on the Opposition Benches, whose Members indulge in fantasy politics and put no money up.

Mortgage Repayment Assistance

Sally Keeble: What steps his Department is taking to help people who have lost their jobs as a result of the recession to meet mortgage repayments.

Kitty Ussher: From 5 January, we have doubled to £200,000 the size of the mortgage on which support for mortgage interest—SMI—is paid, and we halved to 13 weeks the length of time people need to wait to qualify. While it is too early to have precise figures, our latest estimate is that this should help prevent about 10,000 repossessions per year.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend look again at the people who are entitled to claim SMI? It is linked to income-based jobseeker's allowance, whereas most of my constituents who lose their jobs are on contribution-based JSA and, as a result, are under real pressure and are losing their homes. Will she instead consider that it might be linked to the tax credit system, so that more help can be given more effectively to my constituents who face losing their homes?

Kitty Ussher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, and we will, of course, evaluate and review the SMI package in due course. It is worth making it clear that people can receive SMI even if they are on contribution-based JSA, if they are single and meet the qualifying criteria for income-based JSA in terms of the level of savings and so on. However, I suspect my hon. Friend refers to situations when somebody is part of a couple, in which case she is right as the remunerative work rule means that it is long held that they cannot access income-based benefits of any kind if their partner is working more than 24 hours per week. It is precisely to help and support this type of family in such circumstances that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing will shortly be introducing the mortgage support scheme.

Peter Bone: In Wellingborough, there has been a 100 per cent. increase in unemployment in the last year, and one of the practical results that have been reported back to me is that many people are not getting their redundancy money quickly enough, so that they are unable to keep up with their home mortgage payments. Does the Minister think there is some merit in the Department for Work and Pensions taking over responsibility for redundancy payments?

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman is always keen to quote figures from his constituency, but I do not doubt that the schemes we have introduced will support his constituents as well as people throughout the rest of the country. I am happy to look at what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but it is also important to say that, by working together through the lending panel with banks and building societies, we are able to establish better codes of practice, so that lenders give more discretion to those having to pay their mortgages to ensure that, unlike in the '80s and '90s, people do not end up unnecessarily losing their homes.

Pension Credit

John Pugh: What estimate his Department has made of the amount of pension credit unclaimed by residents of Merseyside.

Rosie Winterton: Estimates of the amount of unclaimed pension credit are not available at regional level. In Merseyside, there are 88,410 households—107,670 individuals—in receipt of pension credit.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that answer. A constituent of mine was refused pension credit on the not unreasonable grounds that he was in prison. However, he has never committed an offence or been convicted or gone to prison in his life. Does this not show we have some way to go in administering this scheme, or that we simply do not know who is in prison?

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's constituent would not have been very pleased to be accused of being in prison if he was not. However, we have been able to ensure that the targeting of pension credit has become increasingly successful. Of course we regret any errors, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pass our apologies on to his constituent, but, in general, I hope he will realise that pension credit has helped millions of very vulnerable pensioners, particularly since this Government came to power.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Desmond Swayne: What targets apply to Jobcentre Plus for the time within which jobseeker's allowance claims should be processed.

James Purnell: Jobcentre Plus has a target of 11.5 days average actual clearance time in which to process new claims for jobseeker's allowance. Jobcentre Plus is continuing to meet the challenges it faces and is currently meeting this target within 10.1 days.

Desmond Swayne: Is it meeting it in Lymington?

James Purnell: I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman that information in writing. He will be interested to know that that figure is three days better than it was two years ago thanks to the £1.5 billion of efficiencies that we have released through our modernisation programme, which his party opposes. I know that he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to his leader—perhaps he should send him one of his e-mails and say to those on his Front Bench that he is committed to £1.5 billion on top of the £2 billion that they will not support.

Saving

Richard Benyon: What steps he is taking to encourage saving through pension schemes.

Rosie Winterton: We have already taken steps to strengthen and protect the private pensions system to ensure that people can continue to have confidence to save for their future. In addition, under our pension reforms, employers will automatically enrol an estimated 9 million to 11 million eligible workers into a workplace pension from 2012.

Richard Benyon: Actuaries calculate that changes announced by the Prime Minister in his first Budget as Chancellor in 1997 have cost pension funds £100 billion, which is equivalent to £4,800 for every person with a pension, and there are also the deductions from pension credit payments that were discussed earlier. Is it any wonder that the savings index is as low as it is? It is historically low. Does the Minister agree that we have to get people saving again if we are to help get this country out of recession?

Rosie Winterton: Yes, it is important that people save. Pensions in particular are one of the best ways of saving for security in retirement. However, under this Government, we have a Pension Protection Fund that provides a safety net for 12 million members of defined benefit pension schemes. We have the financial assistance scheme and the pensions regulator, which reduces the risk of problems arising in pension funds in the first place. None of that existed under the previous Conservative Government.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

James Purnell: The continuing responsibility of my Department is to ensure that people get the support they need to get back to work quickly. We are investing now so that those who have lost their jobs do not fall into long-term unemployment and so that those who have been out of the labour market for a while can be helped by the measures in our Welfare Reform Bill.

Annette Brooke: What progress is the Secretary of State making in promoting public procurement of Remploy products? In the factory in my constituency, a small band of very vulnerable people are left with very little work and the South West of England Regional Development Agency feels that a national approach would be more appropriate.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She and I debated Remploy, and her factory in Poole in particular, in Westminster Hall. She will be aware that the regional development agencies, led by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, are developing and putting in place regional showcases where they invite local employers and businesses from the public sector to procure the many products that can be made at Remploy factories. Locally, we can all make a contribution to encouraging our public sector bodies to procure products from Remploy factories. Nationally, I am leading a cross-cutting Government committee on national procurement and I expect to make some positive announcements on that front very soon.

Sally Keeble: Bearing in mind the cost to the Department's budget of alcohol misuse, including the loss of working days, will the Secretary of State say what his response is to the recent proposals from the chief medical officer, including those on the minimum pricing of alcohol?

James Purnell: Clearly, I was asked about the overall policy yesterday. We made it clear that we would be sceptical about proposals that punished the majority for the sake of an irresponsible minority. We are taking powers in the Welfare Reform Bill, so that in future we can require people who have problems with alcoholism to take up treatment as a condition of their benefits. I am sure that my hon. Friend will support those proposals tomorrow.

Philip Hollobone: Blind people in Kettering and across the country would like to know when Her Majesty's Government will make them eligible for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. We debated this during the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, and there will be an opportunity to do that tomorrow. Interestingly, although there was a contribution in the discussions from the Liberal Democrats and from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who tabled an amendment on this issue, there was a lack of any response whatsoever from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on whether he agreed or did not agree. I think that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) needs to have a conversation with his own Front Benchers.

David Anderson: Although I am not in any way downgrading the extent of the recent problems, one of the positive things happening in Gateshead is that Jobcentre Plus is working very closely with the local council, the local college and the regional development agency. Is that being replicated across the country, and do we have enough resources to make sure that jobcentres can work with these people to try to limit the damage?

James Purnell: Yes, that absolutely is happening around the country, and where we have funding that we can devote to, for example, training people before they are employed, we are keen to do that and to expand it. Indeed, the regional Ministers, of whom the Department for Work and Pensions is blessed with three, are playing a key role in making sure that exactly that integration is happening in regions around the country.

Adam Holloway: Given the current economic situation, which obviously has nothing to do with the Government's stewardship of the economy, does the Secretary of State think that it will still be possible to get 1 million incapacity benefit claimants back to work? If not, what sort of figure does he think is doable, and in what sort of time frame?

James Purnell: That is our aspiration. It has always been a stretching goal, and the reason we wanted such a goal was to make it necessary to have a fundamental reform of the welfare state to get to that point. That is exactly why we want to have re-testing for everybody who was on incapacity benefit, why we have abolished IB and replaced it with employment and support allowance, and why we have the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, which will be discussed tomorrow. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's party is not proposing to support them. It wants to posture and to oppose measures that are supported by both David Freud and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). The Conservatives still have time to change their policy before tomorrow and to show that they are serious about welfare reform. Somehow, I doubt that they will.

Jim Devine: As my right hon. Friend knows, the very first "Communist Manifesto" stated that we would give work to those who can and benefits to those who cannot. What it missed out was those rascals who will not work—those whom people in my constituency describe as those who have never worked or wanted to. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the Welfare Reform Bill will tackle those individuals, and not those who genuinely need benefit?

James Purnell: Absolutely—anybody who is defrauding the benefit system is taking money from people who genuinely need it, which is exactly why we have halved fraud over the past 12 years and why we are taking measures to crack down further on people who defraud the system in the Welfare Reform Bill, which will be discussed tomorrow. As my hon. Friend knows, right from the first Labour MP's speech in this House—that of Keir Hardie—we have argued for the support to get people back in to work, but also for making sure that they should have the obligation to do so. That is what tomorrow's Welfare Reform Bill does, and it will make a genuine difference to reducing child poverty and to increasing employment all around the country.

Andrew MacKay: As the pension uprating is always based on the September inflation figures, and given that, as the Secretary of State will be aware, most economists believe that there will be negative inflation by this September, what will happen to pensions?

James Purnell: Of course, we do not speculate on Budget questions. What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, which is a fact, is that we brought forward the uprating to this January by having the £60 bonus. His party opposed that. It should apologise to pensioners around the country, because it wanted to deprive people who needed it of that £60.

Joan Walley: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the issues affecting the ceramics industry. What plans does he have to visit Stoke-on-Trent to talk to workers about what more can be done to help get them into work, and what more he can do at Cabinet level to try to get the investment in tableware and in bricks that could be part of the regeneration that we need for the country as a whole?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend may be glad to know that I plan to visit the area shortly to follow up on a conversation that I had with the general-secretary of the Unity union. It is pioneering an approach whereby it brings together its own money for investing in training with money from the regional development agency and from Jobcentre Plus, to make sure that we can give people help even before they are made redundant and to get them back into work as quickly as possible. I know that this is a vital industry in my hon. Friend's area and that she has campaigned long and hard for it. I will continue to work with her on doing that.

Bob Russell: With the evolution of the Child Support Agency, does the Minister agree that when maintenance calculations are drawn up, a parent in receipt of a company car should be treated on the same grounds—on the same level of benefit—as a parent who receives money in lieu of a company car?

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and this issue, too, was discussed in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. This depends on why the individual is receiving payment in the form of a company car, and each case will be different. If someone is doing so to reduce his child maintenance liability to his children, that should be taken into account, because every parent's first financial responsibility should be to their children.

Kerry McCarthy: This Wednesday marks the 10th anniversary of the Government's commitment to abolishing child poverty. Will the Minister reassure the House that despite the economic downturn, we will not depart from that ambition and we will do all we can to ensure that we meet our targets?

Kitty Ussher: When the Conservatives ran this country, child poverty doubled—we turned that around, and I am proud of the fact that 600,000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 1997, with a further 500,000 children due to be lifted out of poverty as a result of policies that are being implemented. We want to go further, which is why my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue and why we will be legislating this year to eradicate child poverty in this country.

Douglas Carswell: I am told that the other week all the jobcentres in my constituency had only a dozen or so jobs available, yet many hundreds of local people were looking for work. What do Ministers propose to do—rather than just say—to help those people back into work and to stem the rising tide of unemployment in Essex?

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is harder for people to find work, which is why from April we will be bringing in extra training for people, helping people to set up companies and introducing recruitment subsidies to persuade employers to take on people who are in danger of becoming long-term unemployed. That policy will be introduced in April as a result of the £2 billion that his Front-Bench team opposes. Real help requires real money, and without the money, which his Front Benchers oppose, that help would not be made available in April. He should be lobbying his Front Benchers and telling them to reverse their policy, because it is the wrong approach—it is the one that they had in the 1980s and 1990s and that failed so miserably.

Rob Marris: Can the Minister tell the House why, thus far, the Government have not supported the proposals to make blind people eligible for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance, as exemplified in new clauses 10 and 4 to the Welfare Reform Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, that were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson)?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which we debated in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee and will debate again tomorrow. On his specific question, we need to establish a time when we can afford to make provision for this particular benefit —[Interruption.] I am always reassured when talking about finance to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor appear. We will need to examine this carefully, because we need to be able to provide the funding not only for this year, but for many years to come. We are working closely with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and we are grateful for its input. As I say, this is about affordability—that is the primary reason for our approach—but we hope to be able to do it when resources become available.

Paul Rowen: The Secretary of State will know that young people are particularly vulnerable during a recession. I know that the Department is helping apprentices who are at risk of redundancy in the construction industry, but what steps is he taking in other sectors, particularly in respect of the 115 apprentices who lost their jobs at Woolworths?

James Purnell: We want to make sure that apprentices can finish their apprenticeships whatever sector they are coming from, and we believe that the rules allow people to do that, because apprentices normally train for fewer than 16 hours a week. We are committed to ensuring that even if they are training for longer than that, they can continue to finish their apprenticeships, because they have made a real investment in their own skills and we want them to benefit.

Stewart Jackson: What discussions will the Secretary of State have with staff at Luton Jobcentre Plus about reviewing the benefit entitlements of the Islamist extremists who so disgracefully disrupted the Royal Anglian Regiment's homecoming in Luton last week, given that, self-evidently, they were not available for work?

Tony McNulty: The benefit entitlements of any individual are determined by Jobcentre Plus, but I share the implied anger in the hon. Gentleman's question at the disgraceful protest by these individuals. We will take up the question of how such demonstrations will be policed in future with Bedfordshire police and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

David Taylor: The direct payments to carers initiative has been very useful in many ways, but what is the position of people whose spouses are in the final stages of dementia and who do not want to be bothered with the forest of administration and paperwork that is associated with that initiative? The alternative is a high charge from the local authority to do it on their behalf. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would discuss that serious dilemma with me, and especially a specific constituency case that cropped up this very weekend.

James Purnell: I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend knows that nobody is required to use the direct payments service. If people are happy with the service that they get from their local authority or health service, they can continue with it, but the right to control—which is in the Welfare Reform Bill for consideration tomorrow—is important because it gives people the ability to spend the money as they see fit if they are not getting the service that they want or if they think that they could improve on it. I trust that my hon. Friend will support us on that tomorrow, as he will support the whole Bill.

G20 Finance Ministers' Meeting

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors held on Friday and Saturday, to prepare for the meeting of leaders and Finance Ministers in London next month.
	Since November, when the G20 last met in Washington, we have seen a collapse in international trade—a much deeper and more widespread economic downturn—with every country in the world affected. In October, the International Monetary Fund was forecasting world growth this year of 3 per cent. Now it is predicting negative global growth for the first time in 60 years.
	At the meetings, it was clear that every G20 country was determined to act together to restore growth and take steps to restore bank lending, as well as prepare for recovery. There was unanimous recognition, too, that we must take action to help emerging and developing economies deal with this global downturn. We agreed on the following.
	First, to support our economies, we agreed that we must take whatever action is necessary, for as long as it is necessary, to boost demand and support jobs. Many countries have already taken substantial steps to support their economies. The IMF calculates that, in the United States, this year's fiscal stimulus is worth 3.5 per cent. of GDP; in Germany, 3.2 per cent.; in China and France 2.6 per cent.; and here too, our fiscal stimulus is 3.4 per cent. of the economy. We agreed that we should be ready to do more if necessary—not all countries in the same way or at the same time, but whatever is needed to deal with today's problems and prepare for recovery.
	Secondly, to support people and businesses, it was recognised that it is essential to restore bank lending. It was agreed that countries need to consider the full range of options available, including liquidity support, recapitalisation, and dealing with assets for which there is no market or whose value has fallen significantly. On dealing with these assets—something that we, America and other countries are already doing—while there is no single solution or overnight fix, we developed a common framework, so that countries can use the full range of options when dealing with the immediate problems in their banking systems.
	Thirdly, on monetary policy, we welcomed recent reductions in interest rates, and G20 central bank governors made a commitment to maintain lower rates for as long as is needed. That is important, as it sends a clear signal that central banks all over the world will keep interest rates low to support economic recovery. It was agreed that central banks can also use measures other than interest rates, and that is why the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and the Swiss Central Bank are currently putting money into the economy through their credit easing programmes.
	It was also agreed that the financial supervisory and regulatory regimes need to be strengthened, both nationally and internationally. There is significant consensus emerging, here and across the world, that we need to reform the system of banking regulation. That is why I asked Lord Turner, when he became chairman of the Financial Services Authority in the autumn, to come forward with recommendations on how to strengthen our regulatory regime. He will publish his proposals this week. I expect his overview of the system to cover four broad themes: first, capital and liquidity rules; secondly, remuneration and the links to risk management; thirdly, how better to anticipate risks to the wider economy presented by problems in the financial sector; and, fourthly, rather than our abolishing our single regulator, how the FSA can be strengthened to regulate large complex institutions.
	It was clear at the G20 meeting that financial regulation in most countries needs strengthening. In particular, all important financial institutions should be regulated, including those hedge funds that are systemically important. Wider regulation must be complemented by strengthening prudential oversight in looking not only at individual banks, but at how they contribute to wider risks to the economy. In future, banks throughout the world must have sufficient reserves at all times, and regulators need powers to ensure that banks do not over-extend themselves.
	We must also improve international co-operation, building on the 25 supervisory colleges set up since last year to supervise banks that trade across the world. We also need a joint international early warning system that will enable us to deal with emerging problems sooner. That means working within the European Union and recognising the need for co-operation, which we have been demanding for some time, while recognising the essential role of national regulators.
	We also agreed a range of other measures on international banking supervision. All credit rating agencies need to be regulated. There needs to be full transparency of off-balance sheet exposures. Accounting standards need to improve. Regulation will cover payment and bonus systems. We agreed that tax havens must be opened up, and we welcomed recent announcements by Switzerland, Hong Kong, Andorra and Singapore that they will share tax information according to OECD guidelines. Here at home, we expect banks to comply fully with their tax obligations, and I can tell the House that I have asked Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to publish shortly a draft code of practice on taxation for the banking sector, so that banks comply with not just the letter but the spirit of the law.
	The World Bank currently estimates that 129 developing countries, many of them in sub-Saharan Africa, are facing financial shortfalls, and up to 90 million more people could fall into poverty as a result of this global crisis. We agreed that we must minimise the impact of the crisis on developing and emerging economies, many of which—they include India, Indonesia, Turkey and South Africa, for example—were represented at the G20. We agreed that that would require a very substantial increase in resources for the IMF, and that the development banks have the capital that they need. Agreement on total levels of support will need to be reached next month.
	We remain committed to fighting protectionism and maintaining open trade and investment. That is essential if we are to avoid a prolonged downturn. It is also imperative that the international institutions reflect the reality of the day; the IMF and the World Bank were set up 60 years ago. Once when we talked about the global economy, we meant the west and Japan, but not any more. For example, China is already the world's third-largest economy. Emerging and developing countries need to be at the top table too, so we agreed that the next review of IMF representation should be concluded by January 2011, while World Bank reforms must be completed by next spring. We welcomed the recent decision to extend the Financial Stability Forum to cover all G20 member countries.
	The G20 leaders and Finance Ministers will meet again in three weeks' time. We must seize the moment to make a real difference, supporting our economies, dealing with the banks' problems, and preparing for recovery. Ours must be a time for renewal to tackle the downturn and build a more sustainable future. I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: I thank the Chancellor for his statement, and we look forward to the Prime Minister giving a similar statement on the day after his G20 meeting. The meetings are an important opportunity to work together to tackle the financial crisis, and to try to prevent it from happening again. Of course we must send the clearest possible signal that globalisation is not on the retreat, but surely the Chancellor must share some of the quite widely felt disappointment about the fact that the Finance Ministers' meeting this weekend did not produce more concrete proposals and ducked some of the most difficult issues.
	Let us take international trade first. The communiqué says—the Chancellor repeated this—that all countries
	"commit to fight all forms of protectionism and maintain open trade",
	but I am sure that he remembers that in the last G20 meeting in November, something almost identical was said. Since then, of course, the US Congress has introduced the "Buy American" programme, the Indians have increased agricultural tariffs, and our own Prime Minister has gone around talking about British jobs for British workers. Has the rest of the G20 given up on the prospect of putting further pressure on America and India in particular to try to conclude the Doha trade round this spring, which would provide the greatest stimulus of all? If completing Doha is out of their reach, what about at least trying to freeze tariffs at their existing level, rather than allowing them to increase, as current trade rules allow.
	On the reform and financing of international institutions, again I fear that the communiqué ducked some of the toughest issues. For example—again, the Chancellor repeated this—it says that IMF resources should be increased "very substantially". The communiqué issued after last November's G20 meeting said almost exactly the same thing. Perhaps the Chancellor could say something about how much the increase should be, and who exactly is going to pay for it. Would it not help if western powers such as Britain had the courage to give up some of the power that we have at the IMF so that countries such as China, Brazil, India and South Africa have a much greater say, instead of putting it off until 2011? Did he note that the Brazilian Finance Minister said this weekend that his country
	"will only agree to increase capital to the IMF after reform is carried out because there is still an imbalance in our participation"?
	Should that imbalance not be resolved?
	We see the same fudge on future financial regulation. I am delighted that there is now growing agreement on the need for counter-cyclical capital requirements, which I am sure the Chancellor remembers we proposed more than a year ago. Promised future action on the credit rating agencies, off-balance sheet vehicles, stronger macro-prudential regulation, tax havens and bankers' bonuses is all welcome if it actually takes place. Indeed, the British Government can provide unique advice on off-balance sheet accounting. It is a shame that the Prime Minister, in the 10 years in which he turned up to G20 Finance Ministers' meetings and other such meetings never proposed any of those things. It is striking that the Chancellor still defends the system of regulation that his predecessor put in place in 1997, as it has so palpably failed.
	One thing that I concede that the Prime Minister talked about during those years was an early warning system. Given that the early warnings issued in 2003, 2005, twice in 2006, and early in 2007 by the IMF about Britain's housing bubble and Government debt levels were completely ignored by the previous Chancellor, how does the current Chancellor plan to make sure that his early warning system is listened to in the Treasury?
	Finally, I am pleased that the communiqué talks about the need to constrain leverage and the need for fiscal sustainability. I just wish that we could have some of that in Britain. The outspoken comments of various European Finance Ministers and the German Chancellor this weekend exposed the transparent attempt by the Prime Minister to secure some international cover from the G20 for his attempt to create domestic political dividing lines. It turns out that they do not all agree with the Prime Minister that countries such as Britain that are running huge budget deficits can afford yet another round of debt-funded spending splurges. Indeed, the Chancellor is busy briefing newspapers such as the  Financial Times that he does not agree with the Prime Minister on this, either, which should make putting together next month's Budget quite a challenge.
	It would help if we started with a consistent Treasury definition of the size of the existing fiscal stimulus that he put in place. Today, he said that it was 3.4 per cent. of our economy, but in his pre-Budget report speech to the House he said that it was around 1 per cent. of our economy. Will he clear up exactly what the definition of the fiscal stimulus is in the Treasury? Did not Chancellor Merkel sum up the choice facing the Government when she said this weekend:
	"If we want to make a real impact, you really must implement the package first before you talk about the next step"?
	That is spot on. Months after Government schemes have been announced in a blaze of publicity and cheered by that lot on the Labour Benches, almost none of them has been implemented. The working capital scheme has not provided credit to a single business; the homeowners mortgage support scheme has not helped a single home owner; the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is blaming the Treasury and the Bank of England for the fact that the car manufacturers scheme is not up and running; and no one has ever heard again of the national internship scheme. We will return to those issues when we debate the wider economy later this week, and I urge the Chancellor to turn up to that debate so that he does not just do statements and debates on international issues, but answers for his policies on the domestic economy as well.
	We want the G20 to take action, but that means confronting the difficult decisions on trade and finance, not ducking them. I sincerely hope a great deal more progress is made in the next couple of weeks. If it is not, the Prime Minister's claim that he is fashioning a "grand bargain" will look a little over-ambitious, and he will have to return to the real world and confront his failures here at home.

Alistair Darling: I look forward to debating the economy with the hon. Gentleman when we debate these matters on a Government motion at the end of the month and no doubt on many occasions in between times.
	The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points that it is important that we deal with. First, I welcome what he says about resisting protectionism. I agree that we would very much like to see the Doha round completed. We have raised the matter with both the Americans and the Indian Government. We believe that a deal is within our reach, but it is important that countries engage in that. That would send a powerful signal to the whole world that Governments are serious about resisting protectionist calls at present and breaking down barriers in the future. We have raised—I personally have raised it with my US counterpart—the need to make sure in everything we do that we do not end up, intentionally or unintentionally, with protectionist measures, which would be hugely damaging, as we have seen in the past.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of the IMF resources. He asked why we agreed that the conclusion should be reached by 2011, which is two years away, as he said. The reason is practical experience. Simply to reach the agreement arrived at last year took several years of negotiation. What I want to avoid—what we want to avoid—is any delay in giving the IMF extra resources to intervene early and decisively when necessary. If we hold that up while we have arguments about the constitution and representation, people will not forgive us. When we realise that the countries badly affected by the downturn include many emerging economies, the urgent need for the IMF to have additional resources becomes clear. The hon. Gentleman asks who will contribute. Those discussions are continuing.
	On financial regulation, I agree that we all need to learn from what has happened. It is important not only that we have a financial regulatory system that deals with institutions that have not been regulated up to now, such as hedge funds and credit rating agencies, but that we ensure that the system takes account of what is happening internationally. It is important that individual national institutions react when they detect that things are going wrong. That is one of the reasons why, for example, I want our regulators and other regulators to have back-stop powers to stop banks that are overreaching themselves exposing to risk not only the bank itself, but the wider system.
	It is necessary, as I pointed out in the pre-Budget report, that we support our economy now, but it is also necessary to ensure that what we do is sustainable and that in the medium term all countries live within their means. There was a recognition at the weekend that that is necessary.
	I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his conclusion, which seems to be very much the conclusion that he reached last November. Faced with a choice between doing everything we possibly can to support our economy now or standing back and letting recession take its toll, he still believes that the do nothing approach is right. I think he is wrong on that and out of touch, especially when we consider that in the United States, Germany, France, Japan, China and countries across the world, there is a commitment and an acknowledgement that those countries cannot stand by, as Governments did in the 1930s, do nothing and let recession take its toll. That is a price that we are not prepared to see paid.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Chancellor for sending me his statement.
	I represent an party that is internationalist, so I naturally welcome efforts to save the world, but saving the world does start here. Many of the activities discussed at the summit could be much better dealt with at a UK level. First, may I ask the Chancellor about tax avoidance and tax havens? The Government have had 12 years to identify many of the problems in this area, especially as many tax havens are in British dependent territories. Why did they not move on that problem earlier?
	I welcome the Chancellor's comment in his statement that he will produce a code of conduct on tax payments by British banks, but why can the Government not simply stop tax avoidance in banks that are being helped by the British taxpayer? Can he confirm that RBS has stopped its tax avoidance activities? Can he answer the question that I put to his Financial Secretary last week, which is whether Lloyds, now it has been rescued, has agreed to stop some publicly identified tax avoidance devices carried out on a large scale? Since the Chancellor is negotiating with Barclays on its tax avoidance activities, some of which I put into the public domain—indeed, I sent details to the Inland Revenue—can he make it clear that any assistance under that insurance scheme will be made absolutely conditional on Barclays stopping its tax avoidance activities?
	There are clearly international regulatory issues, but the most important of them should surely be dealt with domestically. The Chancellor identified the most important issue in his statement: what he calls the regulation of large, complex organisations. Is not Britain in a unique position among the other countries at the G20 summit, in that three of the five largest banks in the world are British and are becoming the responsibility of the British taxpayer? They are so large because they combine British retail, high street operations with what have come to be called the large international casino operations, much of which are centred on investment banking.
	There is a fairly wide cross-party consensus on this matter. It has been expressed in the Chancellor's party by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Treasury, and Lord Lawson made a good statement for the Conservatives this morning on the problem, advocating a reform that splits the banks into their respective component parts. Why is it then that the Prime Minister, two weeks ago, quite specifically ruled out reforms of this kind—the so-called Glass-Steagall reforms? Why cannot the Government have a more open mind? Are they over-dependent on the advice of investment bankers?
	Will the Chancellor follow up his comments on monetary easing and the joint approach to credit expansion? Why is it that in Britain, the Government and the Bank of England are following a pattern of buying up gilts, which drives down the yields on gilts and causes serious problems for pension funds and pensioners trapped in compulsory annuities, while in the United States corporate bonds are being bought up? Why is there such a big divergence in how these two important countries are pursuing the same policy? Is there some reason for it, or has it just happened by accident?
	My final point relates to the wider global picture. I totally endorse the comments that the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor made about the future of world trade and trade negotiations, but can I ask the Chancellor what was done at the summit about the collapse of trade credit, which is the counterpart of the collapse of credit insurance in our own economy? That, rather more than protectionist measures, explains the downward spiral in world trade.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises five separate questions, and I shall try to deal with them.
	In each of the Budgets since 1997, we have introduced measures to cut tax avoidance. By its very nature, tax avoidance must be dealt with all the time. As we close one loophole, there are those who will seek to find others, which need to be closed down. It is important to have a code of conduct partly, as the hon. Gentleman says, because of the very complexity of banking and the way in which investment banks and others have sometimes sought to develop instruments in order to avoid paying taxes. That has, in itself, posed a systemic threat to the system, which is one of the reasons we need a code, so that people abide by the letter and the spirit of the law. That is very important. I cannot talk about individual institutions because the principle of taxpayer confidentiality is important, but I think that given that the public are supporting the bank system, they would expect banks to be prepared to abide by that code. Our intention is to produce a draft code, probably at the time of the Budget, and then to consult with a view to getting it introduced as soon as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about regulation, and he is absolutely right that there is now a consensus. Ironically, there was a consensus 10 years ago, when he himself was also talking about light-touch regulation. It is important now that people see that our regulatory system recognises the reality of the fact that we are the home regulator to some very large institutions, which could bring a lot of wealth into this country; they certainly provide a lot of employment. However, it is important that the regulatory system should be up to the mark and take account of developments today and in the future.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Glass-Steagall split. The last time that he raised the issue, I said that it would have more strength if the problem had simply been confined to the investment banks. It was not: retail banks in this country and others got into trouble as well. There are arguments for what the hon. Gentleman said, and they need to be looked at, but I am not sure whether a 1930s-style solution is readily transmissible into what is needed in the early part of the 21st century.
	In relation to quantitative easing and what the Bank of England is doing, I should say that the Bank is also buying corporate bonds, which we regard as important. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the letter that I sent to the Governor of the Bank of England earlier this month authorising him to undertake these activities for monetary purposes, I said that I wanted us to maintain the purchase of corporate bonds.
	Finally, yes, the question of trade credit was raised at the weekend. It is an increasing problem, although I suspect that it will have to be dealt with country by country rather than our trying to find a simply international solution. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: trade credit is a problem not just for large companies but for small ones as well. That is why we are seeing what we can do in this country to try to get that insurance in place.

Geoffrey Robinson: I assure my right hon. Friend that on this side of the House we congratulate him on the leadership that he has shown in these matters. Furthermore, we commend his stamina and cool in the face of the diabolically difficult and complicated problems that confront the whole world economy at this point in time. That all stands in marked contradistinction to the do nothing approach of the Conservative party.
	The Chancellor mentioned Lord Turner's report, which is awaited with great anticipation on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to part 2, which deals with bonuses and remuneration linked to risk management? Might there be a chance of our finding in the report a solution to the Sir Fred Goodwin pension issue?

Alistair Darling: In relation to RBS, I said that UK Financial Investments, which holds shares on behalf of the bank, is discussing with RBS how that problem might be dealt with. I also said that there was widespread agreement in the discussions at the weekend. In the past, a lot of Governments said that the payment of bonuses and incentives was a matter for the individual banks. There is now a recognition that in many cases that distorted the activities of the banks so that they got into more and more risky areas, and the staff involved were very heavily rewarded. That did not just bring down one or two banks, but had very severe and substantial effects on the wider economy. As the Financial Services Authority recognised last year, and as other countries increasingly recognise, as they did this weekend, we need to make sure that we take action so that such distortion of behaviour does not happen again.

Peter Tapsell: Is the Chancellor working towards a pan-European banking regulatory regime, with statutory authority within the United Kingdom?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Jacques de Larosière has prepared a report for the Commission. It raises a number of issues that we need to discuss, because we recognise that most of our banks will trade across the European Union, just as many EU-based banks such as Banco Santander and Deutsche Bank trade in this country. Therefore increased co-operation and making sure that there are similar rules within the European Union is important.
	However, as I said in my statement, we have to be clear about who is responsible for the regulation of individual institutions. I therefore think that national regulators will continue to have a very important role. My view is a pragmatic one—what works and is effective is important, and we should not get too hung up on the theology of these things. It is important that we continue to talk and see where we need to co-operate and concentrate within the home state.

Kelvin Hopkins: It was reported in  The Independent on Sunday, and possibly elsewhere, that there were quite serious differences of view with Chancellor Merkel about the fiscal stimulus. My right hon. Friend read out the figures for the proportions of GDP that different countries are committing, but if wide differences did open up, that would be very unfair, particularly on those countries that had a bigger fiscal stimulus and took more of the burden of reflation. Could he elaborate a bit on what differences there were?

Alistair Darling: The agreement that we reached was signed up to by all 20 Governments, including the German Government, who were well represented at the meeting at the weekend and signed up to the same communiqué as everybody else. It is perfectly fair to say that whatever Governments do, they should ensure that they do it quickly and that it is implemented. However, it is also important that we recognise that as the situation continues to develop—remember that we have seen over the past few months a series of figures which show that there is a continuing deterioration in Germany, and in other countries too—it is absolutely necessary that each and every one of us should not only sign up to ensuring that we implement what we have announced but do whatever is necessary to ensure that we support our economies, come through this and get into recovery far more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Chancellor talked about everyone essentially agreeing on the same plate about all the proposals. However, is not the reality that many other countries—Germany, Canada, and others besides—believe that Britain is entering this in a worse state than any of them and do not wish to be driven by the British to give them cover for a panic set of measures? Does he not accept that that is why the Germans are critical and he has to make a very bland statement at the Dispatch Box?

Alistair Darling: I never cease to be amazed at how the right hon. Gentleman, who has spent most of his career here getting about as far away from Europe as he possibly can, seeks to pray in aid the Germans when he wants to make an opposite case. The answer to his question is no, he is not right at all.

James Plaskitt: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the emerging consensus on the reform of banking regulations. Does that consensus extend to abandoning the old Basel approach to banking regulations—in particular, the internal risk-based approach? On lessons being learned, is there a sense that aspects of the wholesale abolition of credit controls and the big bang in the City in the 1980s might have been unwise?

Alistair Darling: I think that there are lessons to be learned in respect of a whole lot of reforms that have been made over the past 20-odd years. In relation to the Basel process, I would say two things. First, the models that we have adopted in relation to how banks are regulated obviously need to be looked at again. Secondly, the Basel process, which, among other things, governs the amount of capital that banks need to hold, should certainly be looked at, because the rules tend to exacerbate an already difficult situation, and that needs to be dealt with urgently. It is unfortunate that the Basel process took 10 years to reach fruition, and the year in which it was implemented was probably the worst possible year in which that could have happened. Therefore, this needs to be looked at again, and urgently, and it is not altogether clear that the Basel process is capable of doing that at the present time.

Peter Viggers: If banks can be criticised for taking over other banks without undertaking due diligence, how much more culpable are the Government, who spent a vast amount of public money undertaking commitments that they do not fully understand? Will the Chancellor undertake that no further public money will be spent unless there is first a careful analysis of the assets and liabilities to be taken over?

Alistair Darling: If I had followed that advice last October, when I was confronted with the imminent collapse of the banking system, and said, "No, I'm not going to do anything for several months while I carry out some due diligence", we would have been left in absolute chaos. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when we take on guarantees, as we have done in relation to RBS and the Lloyds group, which we announced a couple of weeks ago, there needs to be proper diligence. Perhaps he will understand that that is why there was a gap between my announcing the principles of the scheme on 19 January and its implementation. That delay was condemned by many of his hon. Friends. If he is saying, "Yes, you're right—it is necessary to carry out due diligence", then I agree with him on that point.

Jim Devine: Was there any discussion of capping interest rate charges, as they do in France and Germany? It is a waste of time for us to put money into people's pockets when there are store cards and bank cards and when National Provident is charging interest in excess of 183 per cent. and rising, even though the Bank rate is 0.5 per cent. That is a big issue, and I wonder whether there was any discussion of it.

Alistair Darling: Individual credit cards and store cards were not discussed, but of course the general problem of credit and the burdens faced by people in all the countries that were represented were discussed. We need to ensure that when people take on obligations they are treated fairly, that they can afford to meet those obligations and that the repayment rate is realistic and fully understood.

John Mason: I noticed that the Chancellor said in his statement that we should ensure that banks do not over-extend themselves. Will he now accept that the big mistake that Lloyds TSB made was to over-extend itself when it took over HBOS?

Alistair Darling: As I have said before, that decision was taken by the shareholders of both Lloyds and HBOS— [Interruption.] Opposition Members can groan, but I was recently reminded of the fact that the shadow Chancellor made his position clear last October, which I had forgotten. He said:
	"I spoke to both of the chief executives today of the two institutions and made it clear the Conservatives support what they're trying to put together".
	Obviously, as on so many other things that the Tories have said, they changed their mind when it became inconvenient. In response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), that decision was taken by the shareholders of both institutions.

Rob Marris: The Conservative party is, of course, in government—in Canada, which is a member of the G7 as well as of the G20. In relation to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), can my right hon. Friend confirm that Jim Flaherty, in his federal budget in Canada on 21 January, announced plans for a fiscal stimulus amounting to 3.2 per cent. of GDP in the next two years? That comes from a Conservative Government, unlike the do nothing Conservatives here.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right that Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney, the governor of the central bank in Canada, were very clear that Governments have a duty to support their economies. But then I have always found that the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) of things beyond the shores of this country is somewhat hazy.

Michael Fallon: Will the Chancellor now answer the shadow Chancellor's point about all these new initiatives? Could he give us one example of a scheme announced since Christmas that is actually helping businesses in our constituencies—a scheme that has been announced and is actually working?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I am very happy to. For example, the scheme to allow businesses time to pay their tax is now helping about 85,000 companies. There are other examples: the VAT reduction is in place, the reduction in basic rate income tax will come in in April, and many schemes have been implemented and are helping people. When the hon. Gentleman asks about such proposals, he must reflect on the fact that he opposes each and every one of them. If the Conservatives had had their way, not one of them would have been in place, because they were not prepared to put a single penny piece towards ensuring help for people and businesses in this country.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the recognition of the impact of the recession on developing countries, where 7 per cent. year-on-year growth is needed to make any inroads into poverty. What concrete commitments were given by the G20 partners to support developing countries and to follow the notable lead that this country has given in tackling world poverty?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right that that is important. That is why we got a commitment to increase the IMF's resources substantially. I do not think that that commitment would have been readily forthcoming a few weeks ago. It has taken some time not only to persuade countries that we need to increase those resources substantially, but to gain recognition that that means that people need to step up to the plate and produce the means of doing so. I am hopeful that we will be able to complete that process in the fairly near future. It is totally unacceptable simply to stand by and see maybe 90 million people go into poverty because of what is happening. That is another example of why countries need to do something, and why doing nothing is morally wrong in this case.

John Redwood: What, if any, should be the limit on the amount that the UK Government print and borrow to avoid a run on the pound, a debt crisis or a trip to the international moneylenders?

Alistair Darling: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to quantitative easing, he knows that I set out limits in the publicly available exchange of letters between me and the Governor of the Bank of England the week before last.

Kerry McCarthy: I managed, with impeccable timing, to leave the Treasury Committee just when things started to get interesting. However, when I served on it, I asked regulators whether they could analyse and measure the risk in a system—not only systemic, but institutional risk. They assured me that they did that, but it is now obvious that they did not. How can we ensure, when people with PhDs in mathematics—the rocket scientists—devise new derivative instruments and other products, that some of the regulators can do the same and know what they are up to?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure whether we need more rocket scientists; sometimes we need to apply plain common sense. Adair Turner's recommendations will be published on Wednesday, and I hope that they will provide a firm basis on which we can build. As I have said previously, we will publish a White Paper, setting out the Government's intentions for legislation and other matters, at the time of the Budget.

Alistair Burt: To revert to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said about reform beginning at home, when the Chancellor lectured his colleagues on the evils of the off-balance-sheet mentality, did not the slightest blush colour his cheek as he remembered how the Government treated the private finance initiative? What sort of moral example does he think that that set financial institutions?

Alistair Darling: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not make too much of that. I think that he was in government when PFI was invented.

Michael Jack: The Chancellor mentioned quantitative easing in his statement. What steps is he taking to ensure that banks that are beneficiaries of that scheme make additional liquidity available to Britain's businesses at, importantly, a price they can afford?

Alistair Darling: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the lending agreements into which we have entered are either those in which we have put more capital or those to which we have made more money available through the insurance scheme. The Bank of England's scheme for credit easing is part of its monetary policy and does not, therefore, have direct lending agreements tied to it. Of course, if that much more money is in the system, it should help with the amount of money that is available for lending.

Richard Spring: In view of the universal criticism of the expensive VAT cut in this country, will the Chancellor say how many other members of the G20 have followed or plan to follow the Government's path in that direction?

Alistair Darling: As I have said many times—I said it again on Saturday—we have not sought to tell each country that they must do one specific thing. Each country must make its own decision. We have a range of measures, including VAT reduction, cutting the basic rate of income tax and introducing infrastructure projects such as home insulation, as well as measures to help business. Each country must do what is right, but it is important that they do something. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his criticism as a debating point, but he should remember that his party is against all the measures—it would do nothing.

Andrew Pelling: Will the Chancellor add to his earlier comments about the regulation of credit rating agencies? Standard & Poor's and Moody's have a stranglehold on the rating business and freely gave triple A ratings to sub-prime debt structures. Has any consideration been given to promoting a European champion on credit rating agencies, or perhaps even to introducing a public sector provision on rating agencies?

Alistair Darling: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there was not a discussion about the creation of a European credit rating agency. However, his general point about the need to supervise properly those agencies that already exist is important, not only because their determination can be pretty important, but because we need to deal with conflicts of interest where agencies approve a scheme in which they have a direct financial interest. That is clearly unsatisfactory, given the importance and the nature of such agencies.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made from the Liberal Benches about the desirability of separating the functions of an investment bank from those of a retail bank, which is also a point that the noble Lord Lawson made this morning in the  Financial Times? The Chancellor was, I thought, not very enthusiastic about that, but would he consider publishing a Green Paper setting out the arguments on both sides? Alternatively, perhaps he could appoint a royal commission to look into the matter, because it is a matter of major importance and the arguments need to be properly articulated.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: there is an argument to be had. I made the point to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that it is not the case that deposit-taking institutions here have avoided trouble, and investment banks are the sole source of it. It is rather more complex than that. There are arguments about whether we need separate degrees of regulation within institutions that might be involved in both deposit-taking and investment activities. Indeed, I suspect that there are also arguments about what the capital adequacy ought to be in relation to both of those.
	I certainly do not want to stifle argument. All I was saying to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was that I am not yet persuaded that what has been proposed is the right thing to do. The situation is rather more complex than it was when Glass and Steagall sat down to draw up their Act. However, it is important that we use this opportunity to have a debate. My only caveat is that we do not have an unlimited time to do that. Given the length of time that it takes to change the law here or anywhere else, people would want the confidence that we were dealing with the problems and that we had a clear way forward.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Chancellor accept that the system whereby everybody urges ever bigger bail-outs from everybody else is regarded by the public with some bemusement as well as fear, because they know that they are going to have to pay everything back? Does he understand that in the real economy, firms—particularly small firms—are on the receiving end of a completely inappropriate degree of interference from the public sector, by way of regulations, rules, taxes and directives, which prevent the real economy from earning its way out of this recession? Did he discuss that with his colleagues at the G20 or does he have a do nothing policy on that aspect of the economy?

Alistair Darling: While we are in humility mode, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that throughout the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, hardly a speech went by when he did not call for light-touch regulation. Like everybody else, I think that we can learn from experience. We are intervening to support the banking system not to help the banks, but because businesses and individuals would have lost substantial sums of money if we had not done so. People would have lost their savings and businesses could not have accessed money, which would have been disastrous for our economy. As for the smaller businesses sector, it is important that we think long and hard before imposing regulations and that, if we do impose them, we are clear that there is a clear economic or social benefit arising from them.

Philip Dunne: It seems that Lord Turner may have started his review of the regulatory structure with one hand tied behind his back by the present Chancellor and the other tied by his predecessor. Would that be because the Chancellor, as architect of the existing Financial Services Authority, does not want to recognise that any of the plans were perhaps at fault? The regulator has acknowledged that it fell down in its first review of a high-impact firm. Why, therefore, has the Chancellor told Lord Turner not to look afresh at regulation, but just to bolster up failed plans?

Alistair Darling: I do not think that I said anything of the sort to Lord Turner. Knowing Lord Turner, I do not think that he is the sort of person who is ever likely to do anything if he feels that his hands are tied. He had a free hand. He was asked to look at what he thought needed to be put right. When we see his recommendations, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others will find that.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer understand the remoteness of the G20 process to the average British taxpayer? Last week the Government-financed regeneration of Kettering town centre ground to a complete halt because the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is now 70 per cent. owned by the taxpayer, pulled the plug on a local construction firm, which put loads of people out of work and meant that construction came to end. Does grand summitry not stand in sad and sorry contrast to the inappropriate banking decisions taken every day by now almost nationalised banks?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I am not aware of the circumstances of the construction company to which he refers. If he writes to me about it, I will certainly look at it, but he will appreciate that whether or not the state owns a significant shareholding in it, a bank has to reach a judgment about whether something is a good risk on a commercial basis. I am in no position to pass comment on the particular case, as he knows. Banks have to make commercial decisions and evaluate the risks to which they might be exposed irrespective of whether they are in public or private hands.

Peter Bone: The public will welcome the fact that the Chancellor went to the G20 meeting, but they will find it very strange that he is unable to attend the House of Commons this Wednesday, when we have the first full-scale debate on the economy—and only because Her Majesty's Opposition have called for it. Would the public be right in thinking that the Chancellor is running scared?

Alistair Darling: I may be wrong, but I believe that I have given more statements to this House as Chancellor than many of my predecessors. I am always happy to engage with the Opposition, not least because I am engaging with a blank sheet of paper.

Points of Order

Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on how I can ensure that Ministers respect statements that are made in this House. On 27 January in a Second Reading debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, I said that
	"we Conservatives support this Bill".—[ Official Report, 27 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 203.]
	Yesterday on the "the Politics Show", the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the Welfare Reform Bill, said:
	"the Bill we want to put through on Tuesday will do that, and the Tories oppose it"—
	a view that I believe he repeated in Work and Pensions questions this afternoon. How can I ensure that Ministers respect statements made in this House and do not make such inaccurate statements that are designed to mislead the general public?

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the right hon. Lady that I have no control over what Ministers say in this House, so it is not a matter for me. It seems to me, however, that she has put the matter on the record and put the record straight.

Jim Devine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I attended a meeting in this place about Des Warren and Ricky Tomlinson, who were jailed in the early 1970s for their trade union activities. Some 60 people were at this demonstration, and many of them were wearing T-shirts displaying the slogan "The Shrewsbury Two", as those two people were commonly known. Sadly, the vast majority of those individuals were told to take their T-shirts off when they came into this place. Is that a practice that you are aware of, Mr. Speaker, or has something new happened recently?

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the story of the Shrewsbury pickets. It was something that I was involved in.  [Interruption.] Perhaps I should put that another way: I listened to their case when I was a shop steward. The dress code of individuals visiting the House is varied, so I see no reason why these people's T-shirts should have been taken from them or why they were told to remove them. I will look further into the matter and see what I can find out.

Kitty Ussher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If this is going to be an extension of what I have already said—

Kitty Ussher: It is.

Mr. Speaker: We will leave it at that, then.

Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill

Second Reading

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It is important that the UK emerges from the global downturn rapidly and strongly. The Government have responded and will do whatever it takes to ensure the stability of the financial system and to provide real help to people and businesses during these difficult economic times. However, we cannot secure recovery without willing the means, and this short Bill gives the Government the necessary flexibility to provide further support to industry.
	The Bill makes two small but important amendments, to the Industrial Development Act 1982 and to the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 that will help to strengthen the provision of support for businesses.
	The first clause proposes to amend the cumulative limit on financial support that may be provided under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. That provides the legislative power for Government to provide selective financial support to businesses. However, just to avoid any doubt, I would like to make it clear that increasing the section 8 financial ceiling does not in itself authorise any actual expenditure.
	The precise purposes for which assistance may be used are set out in the Act. They include promoting the development, modernisation or efficiency of an industry; the creation, expansion or sustaining of productive capacity in an industry; promoting the reconstruction, reorganisation or conversion of an industry; encouraging the growth of an industry; and encouraging the arrangements for ensuring the orderly contraction of an industry.
	The Act does not include support that is provided under the auspices of the designated assisted areas, which is covered by section 7 of the same Act, or assistance for certain sectors, notably banking and insurance, which are covered by separate legislation. The scope of the power under section 8 is nevertheless wide, and has been used as the legislative basis for a wide range of programmes of support for businesses that have been introduced since 1982. They include enterprise fund products such as small firms loan guarantee schemes, regional venture capital funds and early growth funding; enterprise capital funding; the Phoenix fund; support for the post office network, such as the urban post office reinvention programme; and the new programmes of assistance that we have announced to give business additional support during the current economic downturn, including the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, capital for enterprise, and support for the automotive sector.

David Drew: A couple of automotive firms in my constituency are experiencing significant problems. One of the questions arising from the training packages that we have put together is whether there is some form of wage subsidy to help those undergoing training who are already on short-time working. Would the Bill enable us to proceed with such a scheme if the necessary funds were available?

Ian Pearson: As I have said, a wide range of support for industry is available under this part of the Act. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are already supporting industry by means of new flexibilities in the Train to Gain programme operated through the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and there are separate funding arrangements for training support governed by votes in Parliament.

Geoffrey Robinson: My hon. Friend will know that the problems of the midlands van company LDV are becoming particularly acute, and may not be covered by the £1.3 billion that he says will be available for green investment in the motor industry. Can he assure Labour Members—indeed, all Members with an interest in the area: I do not think his own constituency is so very far away—that LDV's case will, if necessary, be treated separately from the £1.3 billion green initiative?

Ian Pearson: As my hon. Friend will know, we recently announced the provision of £2.3 billion in loan guarantees and exceptional-need loans under the automotive assistance programme to support automotive companies and companies in their supply chain. That potentially includes support for a wide range of companies.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the case of LDV in Birmingham. As he knows, the company has been making a loss for a number of years. We understand from discussions between LDV and officials last Wednesday and Thursday that the management buy-out is proceeding. At present the company is owned by a Russian firm called GAZ, which is responsible first and foremost for the workers at Washwood Heath, who have given the company loyal support for many years. It really must be the responsibility of GAZ to give the company enough support to ensure that it is viable in the future. We have given LDV support and encouragement to enable it to proceed with its application for financial assistance through the European Investment Bank.
	This is clearly a critical time for the company. We made it very clear that without significant further material support from GAZ, its parent company or from another investor, we would find it difficult to justify providing any further assistance, on top of the £24 million we provided to LDV at the time of the takeover by GAZ.

Geoffrey Robinson: This is a critical time, and although losses have been made at LDV, I understand that it has a very convincing five-year recovery programme and a plan for a management buy-out that is quite far advanced. Can the Minister at least promise us that before the company is forced into receivership, or some other form of inactivity, he would agree to a meeting with a delegation of west midlands MPs to hear their case—and perhaps we could have such a meeting earlier rather than later?

Ian Pearson: As I have said, my officials have had a number of meetings with LDV on its financial situation, and I do not think it is as straightforward as my hon. Friend pretends, but I am always happy to meet Members who are representing their constituents' interests, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend and my west midlands colleagues.

Julie Kirkbride: While this appears to be a very simple Bill to enable the Government to spend more money on our industrial sector, the details are a little unclear to say the least. Will the Minister therefore tell the House which bits of the financial help to be given specifically to the automotive sector will be coming out of the pot that this Bill provides for, and which bits will come out of the EIB, as encouragement has been given to apply to it for money, too? Where will the money for the £23 million green car initiative come from, for example? If the Government are so minded, could these provisions also be used to help car companies with their loan books by giving a spur to people to take out loans to buy new cars?

Ian Pearson: I can confirm that guarantees offered by the Government under the automotive assistance programme would have as their legislative authority the increase in spending proposed in this Bill. I hope that things will become clearer to the hon. Lady after I have explained the situation in a little more detail.
	The 1982 Act set the cumulative ceiling for support that could be provided under section 8 at £1.9 billion, increasable by up to four affirmative orders not exceeding £200 million each. The overall ceiling in the original Act was therefore £2.7 billion. That was subsequently revised by the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act 2003, which raised the initial limit to £3.7 billion, increasable by up to four affirmative orders not exceeding £600 million each, to an overall limit of £6.1 billion. We have already debated the second order under the 2003 Act, and will shortly be introducing the third and fourth orders. By doing so, we will ensure the necessary legal headroom is in place to ensure the ongoing delivery of existing programmes and the package of new initiatives that we have recently announced to provide real help for businesses in the current economic climate. I can therefore confirm that all existing and recently established schemes can be delivered under the limits established by the 2003 Act.
	However, scope to introduce any future support for business will be severely restricted, as we estimate that current schemes covered under section 8 will take us close to the £6.1 billion ceiling. Given the unprecedented global economic conditions we are facing, it is important that we maintain sufficient flexibility to bring forward further support if that is required. The first clause of the Bill therefore seeks to amend the limits in the Act, raising the initial ceiling to £12 billion, increasable by four orders of up to £1 billion each to an overall limit of £16 billion.
	We recognise that this is a significant increase, so I would like to make three points in relation to it. First, the nature of business support has changed over the past few years. There has been a shift away from programmes based on grant funding, with greater emphasis now placed on support in the form of loans or guarantees. We believe that that form of support provides good value for money for the taxpayer in the long term, given that the loans will be repaid over time and that only a proportion of the guarantees will ultimately need to be met. However, the full amount secured against public finances counts towards the section 8 limit. As a result, headroom is consumed at a higher rate than under grant-based interventions. As loans are paid back and guarantees lapse, pressure on headroom will reduce. None the less, in the current economic climate we need to maintain sufficient flexibility to respond to the challenges ahead and we believe that the £12 billion ceiling represents a sensible limit at this time.
	Secondly, I can reassure the House that although we are raising the ceiling to £12 billion, that is broadly equivalent as a percentage of GDP to the figure in 1982. My final point in this regard concerns parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of support provided under section 8. Although we are proposing an increase to the ceiling, we are not proposing any changes to the threshold at which individual offers of assistance under section 8 are subject to the approval of the House. That threshold, fixed by section 8(8), remains at £10 million. The aim of the new subsection is to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to consider larger cases of assistance to industry.
	I can also confirm that any future orders to increase the limit would need to be agreed through an affirmative order, as is currently the case. We will also continue to publish the annual report setting out our expenditure under section 8 of the 1982 Act. Aside from the financial limits, all other aspects of section 8 and the wider Act remain the same. I can also confirm that the Bill has no regulatory impact on business and that a copy of the regulatory impact assessment was placed in the Library.

Mark Prisk: The experts in the automotive industry who have been referred to by several right hon. and hon. Members are anxious about the apparent contradiction on whether scrappage is involved in discussions leading up to the Budget. I do not want the final details, but given the importance of vans, can the Minister, as both a Business and Treasury Minister, tell the House whether the Government are considering a scrappage proposal and what progress has been made?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House long enough to know that Ministers do not comment on what will or will not be in the Budget or on discussions leading up to the Budget. He will be aware of the automotive assistance programme, which is a major programme of investment support to the industry. One of my major priorities as a Minister is to ensure that that scheme provides support as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we had a seminar with the banking industry and automotive companies last Wednesday that explained in more detail how the scheme operates. It is open for business now and we are encouraging businesses that qualify to make early applications, which we will endeavour to analyse speedily so that we can look to provide support. We recognise that it is important that we provide support to the industry at this time.
	Clause 2 proposes a small amendment to the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. The Act governs all of the work of the ECGD—the Export Credits Guarantee Department—which is Britain's official export credit agency. The vast majority of industrialised countries have export credit agencies. Broadly, their role is to support exports by providing insurance against non-payment, for example, if importers go insolvent and cannot pay their suppliers or if the importing country runs out of foreign exchange and cannot pay its international debts. The situation is the same for ECGD, and I believe that its role is of increasing importance in the current economic climate. It assists the export trade of British suppliers of goods and services.
	ECGD's remit is to support exports of capital and semi-capital goods and services. That usually means big-ticket exports such as civil aircraft, oil and gas production equipment and services and telecommunications. Often, the buyers of such equipment require medium or long terms of credit. Typically, a civil aircraft is repaid over a 12-year period. Much of ECGD's business involves its giving guarantees to banks, which make loans available to foreign buyers to purchase UK goods and services. Some Members may recall that ECGD used to support other exports normally sold on short terms of credit. Those exports were raw materials, light manufactured components and consumer durables, which account for the majority of UK trade. That part of ECGD's business was privatised in 1991 and since then providing trade credit insurance has been the responsibility of the private sector.
	ECGD is 90 years old this year. It was set up 1919, after the first world war, to help re-establish trade. It was the first export credit agency in the world, and in these challenging times the support that it can give to industry and exporters underscores its importance for the British economy today. It is an independent Government Department that reports to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and its role and purpose is established in law. ECGD's power to support exports is contained in section 1 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act, and it is that Act that this amendment Bill addresses.
	ECGD's primary power to support exports in section 1 of that Act states:
	"The Secretary of State may make arrangements under this section with a view to facilitating, directly or indirectly, supplies by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods and services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom."
	However, there is a problem with the word "facilitating". The point is that ECGD cannot be said to have facilitated exports if those exports have already been supplied. However, with changing business practices, ECGD has been increasingly asked to support exports that have, in whole or in part, already been supplied by the time it is able to take a decision on providing its support for the exports in question.
	There are a number of reasons for that. First, changes in the way contracts in the high-value capital goods markets are managed often mean that requests for support are simply made later these days. Often, it is buyers or overseas project sponsors who approach ECGD for support, not the exporters. Buyers seek ECGD support after they have procured the exports, and some may already have been supplied.
	Secondly, at the same time as these changes were happening across the world, ECGD's decision-making processes were changing to implement wider Government policy on corruption and on social and environmental impacts. These are mandated by ECGD's business principles. They involve rigorous due diligence, which can delay ECGD's ability to make a decision until supply has commenced. This amendment will allow ECGD to provide its support for supplies that have already been made.
	Last year the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report on ECGD and sustainable development, which recommended that
	"No offer of support should be made, whether actual or provisional, until ECGD's Business Principles Unit has completed its assessment"
	of the project to which the exports are destined.
	That referred to ECGD trying to overcome the timing difficulties that I have just explained. ECGD would, before the supply was completed, make an offer to issue a guarantee after completion, conditional on satisfaction of its environmental criteria. The EAC was concerned that these offers of support could weaken ECGD's environmental scrutiny. I do not agree that they did, but I am happy that the Bill will allow ECGD to give effect to that recommendation, as well as solving the problems for British exporters, without any dilution whatsoever of ECGD's business principles or the due diligence it undertakes.
	Without this change, British exporters will continue to face the risk of being discriminated against by overseas project sponsors because ECGD cannot give the type of support those sponsors want. Other export credit agencies in competitor nations do not have the same difficulties. Few, if any, are bound by state legislation and none of ECGD's major counterparts has the same difficulty in supporting exports that have already taken place.
	In the current economic circumstances, extra support for British exports is highly important. Over recent months, ECGD has, not surprisingly, received a vast increase in interest in its support and in applications for its assistance. Rather than giving extra support, if this amendment to ECGD's Act is not made, ECGD support will often have to be reduced. ECGD is complaining about the difficulties that ensue when it can give no certainty of its support. The CBI, the British Bankers Association and the British Exporters Association have lobbied intensively. They argue that without the change, the UK's competitiveness will be adversely affected. I agree with them, and that is why we are introducing this clause, which will help to maximise support for industry through ECGD at this difficult time.
	We face a unique set of challenges. Together, the measures proposed in this Bill form an important part of the response needed to ensure that businesses have the help they need. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mark Prisk: I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I have some sympathy with him because, as a Minister in both DBERR and the Treasury, he has the unenviable task of defending not one, but two dysfunctional Departments.
	The Bill substantially increases the limits of Government financial support for business and exports—first, as we have heard, to £12 billion and then, potentially, to £16 billion. These are substantial provisions, reflecting the severe economic climate. We agree that business urgently needs practical help, but our concern is that these good intentions will not become the practical aid that business seeks. I say that because, to date, this Government's record of financial support for industry has largely been one of talk, not action; it has been a story of half-baked ideas badly implemented, and it has resulted on numerous occasions in confusion and anger among the very people whom Ministers claim they are trying to help. Ever since the fall of Lehman Brothers in September and the collapse of world markets in the autumn, the need for urgent action has been clear, to enable working capital to reach real businesses. That is why last November the Conservatives set out a plan for a national loan guarantee scheme of some £50 billion for viable businesses of all sizes and all sectors—clear, easy to access and simple to understand, it could underpin conventional bank lending.
	I wish that the Government had done what they often do in these circumstances—stolen our policy and claimed it as their own. After all, we see that all too often, yet on this occasion the Prime Minister has been deaf to good advice. Despite promises made last November, it was not until January that the Government's schemes were finally announced and even then—in the opinion of business—it was clear that they were half-baked. Let us consider the capital for enterprise fund, which is worth £75 million and is intended to provide equity funding to small businesses. When it was first announced last November, the Department said that it would
	"be ready to start investing by the end of January 2009".
	January came and went and the snow fell in February and thawed, yet there was still no news and no investment, so last week, in the middle of March, as spring approached, I inquired exactly how much had been invested. I naturally assumed that the sum might have been £10 million or £15 million, but the people who run the scheme—Capital for Enterprise Ltd—told me that in fact not a single pound has been invested in any business.
	What about the working capital scheme, which was announced on 14 January? We were told then by none other than Lord Mandelson that it would be the centrepiece—the linchpin—of the Government's policies. It was to provide up to £10 billion in Government guarantees to underwrite bank lending and to be available from 1 March. That date came and went, so on 4 March we asked the Leader of the House when the scheme would commence. We thought that if we were lucky, it would be this month, but, who knows, it might begin on 1 April—how appropriate that would be. She could not say, and although I realise that she and Lord Mandelson are not exactly bosom buddies, surely between them they must have some idea when this scheme might actually start.
	One scheme is up and running: the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which is worth £1.3 billion and is intended to underpin lending to small firms. On Friday, the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, whom I am delighted to see in his place, gave us a remarkable two-hour oration, during which he confirmed that 26 applications had been approved. There was another hour to go before he finally sat down, but what he did not tell us was how many firms had actually got the money; perhaps the Minister here today could complete that speech in his reply.
	Part of the problem is that when Ministers make their announcements, they often have not really worked through the details—indeed, in some cases, they have not even cleared the schemes with the European Commission, as they are meant to do—and meanwhile, our competitors are stealing a march on us. For example, by last Christmas, the Germans, French and Americans were all ready to act. In Germany, some €2 billion has been extended to industry; in France €6 billion; and in America, some $17 billion was on hand for its car industry. The question that British businesses put to me—and I hope that the Minister will reply when he responds to the debate—is "Why is it that, under this Government, British businesses are the last to get the help that we need?"
	The answer may in part be the fondness that the Prime Minister—who, after all, was once Chancellor—has for tinkering and meddling, and creating myriad complex schemes that prove so confusing in practice. Thus we have the working capital scheme; the enterprise finance guarantee scheme; the capital for enterprise fund; the transition loan fund; the European Investment Bank's supported loans scheme for growing firms; the EIB-backed automotive industry loan scheme; and the £l billion non-EIB-backed, automotive loan scheme. Each of these schemes has different eligibility criteria and different rules. These in turn need different forms and different sets of business data.
	So the problem is that businesses are unclear about what is available, what they can apply for, and which scheme is best for them. They are not the only ones. Most of the banks tell me that they have yet to receive the detailed terms and conditions for many of these schemes, so that they can brief their high street branches—

Ian Pearson: indicated dissent.

Mark Prisk: Well, that is the evidence in at least 100 letters that my office alone has received. When our constituent businesses go to their bank, they are told that it does not have the information and that the staff have not been briefed or trained. We are left at best with confusion and, at worst, with no help at all.
	Let us take for example a small touring company based in Suffolk. It applied for help under the enterprise finance guarantee scheme to consolidate its overdraft, to release funds to advertise during the critical winter months. Despite the fact that the business was advised by Business Link that it was eligible—indeed, it was in the statement issued by Ministers—its high street bank turned it down. The result of that conflicting advice is that five staff have lost their jobs and there is real pressure on the firm's finances. The managing director said
	"what a joke this scheme is...business link have no idea what the banks want out of this scheme...all of these big shouts by the Government about placing money out there to help small business is all just propaganda...it's a disgrace".
	That managing director is not the only one who is rightly upset. The FSB has just conducted a survey of its members. Six weeks on from the launch of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the majority of its members say that the banks are still not using it. It is no wonder that three quarters of the FSB members surveyed said they had no confidence in the Government's economic policies.
	The gap between Ministers' good intentions and their actions has, sadly, been evident for some time. Thus, in the last 12 years they have overseen the creation of some 3,000 business support schemes, only recently realising that that creates waste and is confusing for many businesses. In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the regional venture capital funds. When they were established, we were told that they were vital to plug the gap in which the private sector would not invest. I agree that there is a gap in equity funding for smaller enterprises, but what is not clear is why that state-backed scheme, led by the regional development agencies, is the best way forward.
	The latest figures show that some £250 million has been allocated to that scheme alone in the English regions. However, the value of the investments actually made was only £126 million, half of the available total. What happened to the other half? Did the demand that Ministers predict not exist, or were requests simply strangled by the scheme's red tape?
	As the Minister said, the second clause of the Bill specifically seeks to expand the funding provisions for exporters and would make some important technical changes. Something certainly needs to change when it comes to the balance of trade, because under this Government our balance of trade was nearly £40 billion in the red even before the recession.
	In more recent months, there was initial hope that the huge drop in the value of the pound—a drop of some 25 per cent.—would have helped to boost exports. However, the latest figures for January show that, while the volume of goods exported to EU countries rose, this was outweighed by a 16 per cent. plunge in exports to non-EU countries. The result that month was a net trade loss of £7.7 billion. It is clear that the UK needs significantly to strengthen the volume, and indeed the value, of its exports.
	In November, the Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion in his pre-Budget report to help small and medium-sized UK exporters. It was to be delivered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in conjunction with the banks. It was to have been a temporary facility providing smaller exporters with better access to short-term working capital. Of course, the intentions sound good, but it has been difficult to find out what progress has been made, although we looked quite carefully. Finally, yesterday I was left to check the latest information from the ECGD. Perhaps I should share with the House what its website says:
	"The scheme is at an early stage, and there is no set timetable for its implementation."
	Is it really the case that four months after a £1 billion scheme, meant to help people in this recession, was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Dispatch Box, no timetable has been set for its implementation? I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will answer that question directly. If there is a set timetable, why does the Department not know, and if there is not a set timetable, what on earth have Ministers been doing?
	Let me turn to the main export credit scheme—the fixed-rate export finance scheme. I apologise for the endless litany of alphabet soup that the schemes seem to generate. That particular scheme is meant to be wound up in eight months' time, yet despite having planned the scheme's replacement since December 2007, Ministers are seemingly unable to explain to exporters how the new scheme will work. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), rightly said that exports are crucial, so can he tell me why it is that, just eight months before the introduction of a new scheme, when companies inquire they are not able to learn the details of the scheme that will replace the current programme? After all, many contracts that are being negotiated now will run way past December. When will businesses have an answer?
	A number of Members of this House have rightly raised the subject of the automotive industry, which has often been at the heart of the question about financial support. Car registrations have been falling for many months. In February, they fell again, by another 22 per cent. I had to double-check whether there was meant to be a decimal point in the middle of that, but the figure really is 22 per cent. for a single month. Meanwhile, in response, manufacturers have reduced production; indeed, many have suspended it. Thousands of people have either lost their job or face redundancy in the coming months. We should not forget the long supply chains in this sector that serve manufacturers here and abroad; the Minister rightly mentioned them. What they all need is clear and decisive action.
	In January, Ministers set out their plans for the sector. Sadly—I draw no comfort from this—the industry said that the plans were incomplete, had not even been authorised by the European Commission, and often completely failed to address the question of car sales. Quite rightly, the industry has continued to press Ministers to get them to spell out exactly what their package means in real money.
	As the Minister mentioned, last Wednesday he hosted a summit at which we were offered more details of the £2.3 billion automotive loan schemes. We welcome the news that Jaguar Land Rover is to get up to £27 million in support of a new, lighter vehicle. However, even that modicum of good news was overshadowed by a spat between Lord Mandelson and the Bank of England about who was, or was not, to blame for the long delays. How frustrating that must be for the junior Minister; he was able to push forward an initiative, but it was completely driven off the front pages by his own boss.
	While some Ministers are passing the buck, the car sector is becoming ever more frustrated. On a recent visit to the midlands, I talked to representatives of the industry there, and I have to say that in their responses, they were overwhelmingly negative towards the Government. Why, they asked, did they not even get a statement of aid until January, when car sales had been plummeting for at least four months before that? Why, in January, were the schemes not worked through, as they were in France and Germany? Why did it then take another month for basic EU approval to be sought and secured? Their concerns did not end there. In January, instead of being promised a package to aid the credit arms of car firms, we were promised that a junior Minister had been—I will get the phrase right—
	"tasked to draw up a plan".
	It seems that the same Minister doubts the need for such a plan. Lord Davies was reported in the  Financial Times last week as saying that credit insurance problems would solve themselves as corporate lending picked up. That is not the view of the CBI or the FSB. Indeed, the federation said that Lord Davies was "unrealistically bullish". The British Chambers of Commerce went further, and highlighted industry-wide difficulties with credit insurance. It said of the Minister for Trade and Investment:
	"It's very complacent to say that everything will sort itself out".
	That is not the message that should come from the Dispatch Box. Perhaps in his reply to the debate, the Minister can put things straight. Will he specifically tell us, either now or in his reply, whether the Government will introduce a plan to tackle credit problems, or is the Government's plan on this issue simply to do nothing?

Geoffrey Robinson: May I just return for a second to what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the German guarantees that have been put up of about €2 billion? He may be more up to date than I am, but the last time I heard about that, at least half that amount, although allocated by the German Government in their interest, and probably quite rightly, still had not been cleared by the European Commission?

Mark Prisk: My understanding is that most of that sum has been cleared and delivered, certainly according to the reports that I have read. That represents a sharp difference in that our Government have only just obtained permission from the European Commission to propose guarantees.

Geoffrey Robinson: That is the whole point. The Germans have made the allocation, have said that they are going to do it, and have guaranteed it. Months ago, they did that for Opel, and announced €1 billion before the end of last year. It certainly had not been agreed at that point, but they went ahead, and they have done so again. I still do not think that the position is clear. We have rightly announced it, and we will be ahead of them in getting clearance this month.

Mark Prisk: Clearance is one thing, but delivering it to businesses' bank accounts is the critical point. That is the difference between the Government and the French and German Governments.
	The Bill seeks to provide the Government with the ability to extend financial support for industry to up to £16 billion. In such difficult economic times, we recognise the need for such additional powers and while, quite rightly, we shall scrutinise each policy, we will not oppose the measure today. Our concern, as I have tried to explain, is about how Ministers implement their powers, as their record is one of press releases, not practical action. It is a tale of dither and delay, of bold promises and timid deeds. I have no doubt that Ministers mean well and wish to help, but my fear is that the gap between their rhetoric and reality is one through which hundreds of firms, and thousands of jobs, could yet be lost.

Lorely Burt: The Bill is the most recent in a long line of attempts by Government to give industry a shot in the arm. Unfortunately, the well-meaning but incompetent doctor has yet again missed the vein, plunging the hypodermic containing life-giving fluid into a part of the economy where it will do no harm, but from which it will fail to flow through to the main body of the ailing economy, where it is most needed.
	We have a problem, because while the Government are applying a poultice to the sick body of the economy, the banks have applied a tourniquet, preventing the flow of cash through the economy that would nourish and enrich it, and enable it to stagger back to its feet again. The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the Bill today, because we recognise that it includes measures that will help, but we regard it as a wasted opportunity. It is not as if not enough people are trying to tell the Government what they could and should be doing. Over the past few weeks, I have been doing a bit of research in my constituency. I have been talking to businesses big and small, and trying to find out how they are faring and what the Government could do to improve the environment to enable them to survive.
	The first thing that the Government should introduce in the Bill is some form of support or regulation of trade credit insurance. Withdrawal of trade credit insurance is what eventually did for Woolworths. Trade credit insurance insures a company when it has extended credit to another against the risk of not getting paid. If a company has its trade credit insurance withdrawn, other companies become nervous about trading with it because the message given out is that that company is risky to trade with.
	A profitable retail company in my constituency has had its trade credit insurance severely reduced just at the time it wants and needs to expand. Its suppliers right down the supply chain are having their trade credit insurance cover reduced or even withdrawn, sounding a death knell for many. When a successful company that has no record of financial problems is growing, why would anyone want to reduce its trade credit insurance? The insurer told that company, "Oh, it's not you personally; you're just operating in the wrong sector."
	Trade credit insurers have been described as organisations that are willing to lend an umbrella only when the sun is shining. I would not go quite that far, but it is clear to me that something needs to be done, and fast, to stop perfectly good companies going to the wall for no reason.

David Drew: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the problem with trade credit insurance is that it is a private monopoly? There are so few companies operating in the field that once a firm has lost trade credit insurance with one insurer, it is virtually impossible to get it from some other company. That is at the root of all the problems.

Lorely Burt: Indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right. Once a company has lost trade credit insurance, the possibility of gaining it from another organisation is very low indeed. For months, hon. Members in all parts of the House have been asking for Government action on trade credit insurers. When will the Government take action to ensure that such insurers stop turning the tourniquet even tighter on business?
	Regulation is another issue of great concern to business. As with taxes, everybody moans about it, but most of us recognise it as a necessity—most, that is, except the Conservatives, who have called for less regulation, including of the banking and investment sector. Nevertheless, the imposition of new regulations at a time of economic crisis can be very unhelpful.

John Penrose: I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to be accurate. To be clear, the Conservative party has just published a report on banking regulation and believes that a great deal of reform is needed, including much tougher regulation, to prevent systemic risk in banking. Elsewhere in the economy, which is being held back by an awful lot of heavy-handed red tape, we agree with light-touch regulation, as indeed do the Government.

Lorely Burt: I am delighted to hear that the Conservatives have changed their attitude towards banking regulation. In the past they have done a great deal to try to introduce lighter-touch regulation of banking. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about other forms of regulation. In that we share a common approach.
	Many companies are focused completely on the day-to-day cash flow management of their businesses. Instead of reviewing their cash flow every quarter or every month, they are now doing so every week or even every day. They do not want to have their eye taken off the ball by having to contend with new regulations. If they do not give all their emotional energy and attention to managing today, there may not be a tomorrow in which such regulations can take effect.
	A particular concern to potential investors in this country is the propensity of the Government to make decisions and regulations retrospectively. We saw an example of that on 28 January in the Westminster Hall debate on retrospective business rates, concerning the retrospective levying of business rates on struggling port-based firms. Clearly, more regulation is needed in some sectors, such as banking and trade credit insurance, but in other areas the Government could take their foot off the pedal and delay the introduction of some non-vital regulations. My second question for the Minister is this: will the Government impose a moratorium on the implementation of non-essential regulations until the economic situation improves, and will they give some heart to potential investors in this country by publishing a statement of intent showing that they do not intend to impose any further retrospective legislation?
	The Bill will amend section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and section 1(1) of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. Section 8 of the 1982 Act seems to be the Heineken of industrial financial help, reaching parts that other industrial financial assistance cannot reach. Such assistance has to benefit the UK economy, or any other part or area of the United Kingdom, which is a pretty wide definition. It has to be "in the national interest"—well, obviously—and it has to help when assistance cannot be appropriately provided in any other way.
	The Bill raises the ceiling under which financial assistance can be given from the current maximum of £6.1 billion to a potential total of £16 billion. That is a lot of money, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister why that amount of taxpayers' money was deemed appropriate. Another £10 billion has been added; it is a nice round figure, but what justification is there for it? The figure of £16 billion represents £26,000 for every man, woman and child in this country.  The Independent today has done its sums and calculated that, due to the recession, the personal cost of the downturn for every single British citizen is now £40,000, which is a lot of dosh. We must be sure that money is spent wisely where it really will make a difference.
	The amendment of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 will widen the definition under which assistance can be given to exporters under the export credit guarantee scheme. The CBI welcomed that measure because it will support transactions where goods have already been exported, such as where early shipment was required before an export guarantee department decision on cover was made. The CBI says that
	"enactment on this amendment will assist exporters in a clear and practical way and should assist in retaining jobs in the UK."
	If it is good enough for the CBI and for the British Bankers Association and other groups, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) mentioned, it is good enough for me.
	How effective has the plethora of Government announcements been so far? The Forum for Private Business says that the Government should not just assume that under the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the problems of smaller business have been sorted, and that they must consider the looming problems of the cost of finance, business rates and late payment. Can the Minister say just how many companies have benefited from the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the working capital scheme and the capital enterprise fund? We heard from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that no money has yet come through for the latter two schemes. Will the Minister be able to demonstrate that any of these funds are making a material difference, or with regard to the vast majority of companies are the Government just tantalising and teasing business with promises while little or no real money is flowing through?
	The Government have ignored simple, effective and relatively inexpensive Opposition proposals, such as the Small Business Rate Relief (Automatic Payment) Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) only two weeks ago. I will not rehearse the arguments about that, but the Government have ignored that open-goal opportunity to help the smallest businesses that are least well informed about the help that they are already entitled to.
	Some lenders, such as lease financiers, are simply not covered by the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, although 750,000 small businesses rely on lease financing. There is no safety net for those smallest of lenders, which nevertheless play a vital role in helping the smallest businesses as well as larger ones. Will the Government consider providing assistance for lease financing, along the lines of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme?
	The opportunity to deal with the nefarious activities of serial liquidators has also been missed. Such parties trade, run up debt and then liquidate a company, leaving suppliers in the lurch, only to set up again the next day under a similar name. Those people cynically drag down good companies, and their activities are downright theft. If any director were required to register in a simple register of administrations, that would enable a quick search to determine how many times an individual had bumped their company. That would protect good companies against directors bent on a course of exploitation of the trust and good will of others. Will the Minister consider the possibility of creating such a register?
	In conclusion, I should say that the Bill is a missed opportunity. Industry needs an environment in which it can not only compete, but continue to operate. It needs cash, but despite all the announcements that have been made thick and fast in the past few months in committing billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to prop up a banking system so sick that it is haemorrhaging the blood transfusions that we are administering, vital support is still not making its way to the real wealth creator—industry itself. Taxpayers' money is flowing all right; it is flowing into the coffers of the banks and into an interminable black hole.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Liberal Democrat shadow Chancellor, has been like a seer; he was sending out warnings to the Government years before the crisis that we now face finally arrived. He predicted that the grand edifice of the banking economy would turn out to have been built on sand, and that we would need to nationalise Northern Rock. He has watched the Government pandering to the banks like an over-indulgent auntie to spoilt and uncontrollable nephews and nieces, asking them please to share out nicely the pile of sweeties that they have been given and becoming mystified when they are not good children who do as they are told.
	We now have a majority shareholding in Lloyds HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is saying to the Government that it is time to take firm action and make the children share out the sweeties. It is time to nationalise the failing banks and ensure that cash goes not into the greedy mouths of the banking industry, but right to where it is needed—the hard-working companies that are struggling to survive.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for having been called to speak on the Bill, which is important; it adds a significant amount to public expenditure. It is disappointing that there are so few Members on the Government Benches to speak in support of what the Government are doing.
	I tried to listen intently to the Minister's explanation of what the Bill was all about. I recognise that the Minister, who serves in both the Treasury and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, must be very overworked at the moment. However, I feel that what the Bill is actually doing—in contrast to the warm and good intentions about which we often hear from the Government Dispatch Box—is very limited.
	Exactly what will this extra tranche of money be used for, where can it be spent and who will be the beneficiaries? Given the Government's progress on the schemes that they have already announced to a bewildered public, will the money go into the real economy? There is something of a question mark about those issues. Although the help contained in the Bill is desirable, we clearly need to do more to support our manufacturing and industrial sectors. Conservative Members wish the Bill well, but we wish we knew more about exactly what it was going to do. I hope that the Minister who sums up after the contributions of other Members will be able to give the House more of the detail that we would like to hear.
	It is horribly true that we face an extremely difficult situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) observed that our trade deficit last year was some £40 billion—an eye-watering figure that is very serious bearing in mind that we started 2008 thinking that we were still in the good old boom years. It is an even more frightening figure when we consider that we are in very depressed economic times. It makes the Government's failure to do something about the gross imbalance that has been developing in our balance of trade figures over the 12 years during which they have been in power all the more remiss and worrying. After all, it is the future that counts, and we have to do something to put these matters right. We all know that it will not be too long before unemployment officially reaches the 2 million level, and there are dire predictions in almost any paper that we care to read that that figure may go up to 3 million within the next year.
	At the moment, our inflation is clearly under control, except for the fact that it is going in the wrong direction and we might be facing deflation, which is as worrying as high inflation. One can only hope that we avoid the situation described in  The Daily Telegraph this morning, whereby we have a deflationary economy in recession in which the position of people who owe money is made even worse by their debts becoming ever more real in purchasing power terms and they get into a very difficult state, as opposed to the position in an inflationary situation, where their debts tend to be wiped out by inflationary price rises. That would be a very difficult situation. None of us, except for the very elderly in our society, can remember the last time that it happened, in the 1930s.
	In the last quarter that was measured, there was a 1.5 per cent. drop in the UK's economic growth and a 3.3 per cent. drop in manufacturing. The service sector was holding up at that point and helped to make the figure look a little better than it might have been. I suspect that none of us thinks that we will see any better growth figures in the quarter for which growth figures will be announced shortly, which will put us officially into recession. If that were to continue for the whole year, it would put us officially into a depression.
	We face an extremely serious state of affairs, and the Government need to do what they can to help the business, industrial and manufacturing sectors of the British economy. That is why the Bill is important and why Conservative Members will support it. We have heard about the high-profile cases of bankruptcies such as Woolworths, whose demise has left a big scar on Bromsgrove high street. Wedgwood is also in my area, albeit not in my constituency. We have heard about the big companies that have sadly gone to the wall in this economic environment. Every day the same thing happens to lots of small and medium-sized enterprises, yet none of those is ever heard of.
	A steady stream of business men have come to my surgery truly at their wits' end because of the state of economic activity. They have well run family businesses that have existed for the past 10 or 20 years, and in the good times they were not dazzled by the amount of money that the banks were trying to lend them. Banks were throwing money at them, saying, "You'd really like new office premises or industrial premises. You'd really like a new car, because you've worked very hard as the managing director. Come on, borrow some money from us. We'll give it to you at these really good rates." They were not tempted by the devil in such ways. They have run a tight balance sheet and done all the right things. However, the general economic environment means that nowadays, they are scraping money together to keep their companies going.
	I came across a company the other day that sells its products to a very well known DIY store. It is now in the terrible position of not knowing how much to produce, because that store is operating on a sale or return basis. The company has to decide whether to produce a lot of lovely things that would normally fly off the shelves in the good times but stick on the shelves in the bad times. It has employed the people who produce those goods and paid their wages, and it has paid for the raw materials that the goods are made of. It has paid its tax, national insurance, heating and lighting bills and the costs of its building, but its goods will be returned because they have not been sold. The banks are getting edgy about the overdraft limits, because they cannot be sure that the DIY store will pay the bill for the goods that have been sent to it. The situation has therefore become extremely difficult and worrying for all concerned.
	Sadly, many people in such a situation have been in tears. They run family businesses, and the people who work for them have done so for a very long time and been completely loyal. The workers are prepared to accept a reduction in their salary or employment conditions to help the company survive and to help the boss make things work. Yet the boss does not know what he can offer, because the situation is so desperate that he has no certainty about the future. Measures are therefore needed to bolster the economic environment and people's confidence. We all know that confidence is part of what is needed, but when bad news keeps coming it is hard for anybody to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and hope that things will be any better.
	I understand from reading the little information that we have been given about what the Bill will do that it will not support the banks—that is something separate—except, I assume, when they offer insurance guarantees using credit that is available to them through the Government scheme. It will not help the banks' balance sheets by helping with their capital requirements, which are an entirely separate matter and involve a good deal more than the £12 billion that is at stake in the Bill. However, I think that I am right in saying that when they provide credit insurance for firms' activities, the Bill will offer them financial support. No one is looking at me at the moment, so I assume that I must be right, because there are people in the Chamber who know a great deal more about the Bill than I do. It is therefore partly about the banks, inasmuch as that provision will form part of the financial assistance package.
	I make an appeal to the Minister to understand what is happening in the banking sector with regard to support for small firms.

Michael Fabricant: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with considerable interest. Is she aware that a constituent of mine has been told that even when the Bill becomes law, as I am sure it will, the banks will still be asking for 100 per cent. guarantees from their clients? There will effectively be a double guarantee, one from the Government and one from the company. Sometimes, particularly given the economy's current condition, companies are unable to give such a guarantee, in which case the Bill will be worthless. The Minister is looking even more blank that he usually does, if I may say so, but I hope that he will be able to correct me and say that some imposition will be made on banks, particularly state-owned banks, to prevent them from asking for such a guarantee.

Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope that the Minister has heard. When his colleague responds to the debate—

Michael Fabricant: No, the same Minister will respond.

Julie Kirkbride: When the Minister responds to the debate, it would be helpful to know whether matters are as my hon. Friend described.

Ian Pearson: I was looking blank because the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) clearly has a limited understanding of business if he does not realise that banks often require guarantees as a result of lending decisions. He should understand how business operates instead of making cheap political points.

Julie Kirkbride: rose—

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julie Kirkbride: I will happily give way so that my hon. Friend can defend himself. Otherwise, I will have to do it for him.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend knows that I was in business long before I became a Member of Parliament and I am therefore well aware that banks require guarantees for lending. However, they do not require double guarantees—double indemnity. I am disappointed that the Minister did not correct me—I hoped that he would—and say that there would be an imposition on the banks, so that they would not ask for a guarantee from companies as well as from the Government. They should have some guarantee, but not 100 per cent.—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be brief.

Julie Kirkbride: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that my hon. Friend was allowed to make his point, which I think I would have made. The double guarantee is clearly unacceptable because taxpayers' money is being provided for a purpose—to share the risk so that we might help the flow of business credit in a difficult environment for businesses.
	Several cases about banks' activities have come through my postbag. I take each one up with the relevant banks in the hope that they realise that politicians in the House get to learn how badly they are behaving, and that they might bear that in mind before shaking the tin for more money for their greed and extravagance, which got them into the current position. In one case, a gentleman who runs a small business had an overdraft of £10,000 and was forced to take out a loan to pay it off when he had no difficulties with his credit record. He had an order book that would have sufficed to make the payments. I am told that the bank has a policy of acting in such a way and I am pursuing the matter.
	We have got ourselves into an intolerable position whereby the banks, having accepted considerable sums of public money, do not do the decent thing and share the burden of the risk with the taxpayer and with companies in difficult times. If they did that, it would ideally get us over the hump of our current difficulties and into a more normal world, in which companies can make money without taxpayers' help and the taxpayer can be repaid the huge sums of money that have been disbursed to keep the system alive and to prevent even more catastrophic circumstances. Matters need to be righted swiftly so that taxpayers are not as exposed as they are in the current environment.
	The banks still have a long way to go. I hope that the Minister will take issue with them, as part of the exercise under the Bill, inasmuch as it affects the banking industry, over some of their schemes and their treatment of businesses.
	The automotive sector has been mentioned. The car sector needs clarity of vision and leadership from the Government about exactly what they want. We understand that there were difficulties with the European Union about getting permission for various guarantees. However, before the crisis arose, there was over-supply in the car sector, and many people said that too many people produced cars. I am worried that, in such difficult times, those who get in first to protect their car industry will be those who survive with a car industry. We do not want to find that other countries have been able to protect their viable car industries in such a way that companies that have not received help and will find trading difficult because of the general economic environment, are left more vulnerable in the wider shake-out through over-supply in the international market for car production.
	We know that the American car companies—the GMs and the Fords—have been trying to divest themselves of their European operations. There are lots of car companies in need of a friend at the moment. I worry that those Governments who are bigger friends to their car industries will find that they actually have a car industry left when this is all over and that those who are not as proactive in ensuring the best deal for their car operations might find that they do not have one. I ask the Government vigorously to pursue their policy on the automotive sector—whatever it is going to be—because the sector is in such a vulnerable position. We do quite well in cars and we would like to keep it that way. I therefore look forward to hearing more about what the Government plan for the sector.
	The way my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford described the various schemes that are now available to businesses to help them take advantage of Government support through the present economic environment could have been part of a comedy sketch. For a company that has so many other problems on its hands, the idea of wading its way through Government bureaucracy and all the different Government schemes to find which one might help it is not realistic in the times in which we live. I sit on the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, but unless I write them all down, I cannot remember all the schemes that my hon. Friend mentioned that the Government have come out with in the past few months to help businesses. If we in this House cannot do that, how can we expect people in the real world to know any better?
	For example, a constituent came to my surgery a month ago who was really keen on the capital for enterprise fund, which used to be the equity swap fund, as it could help his business. He approached the banks, which knew nothing about the initiative, but were happy to fill in the paperwork and see whether they could find something out. He made an inquiry to DBERR and was given a number. Obviously he was pleased to have the number, because it made him feel that someone had registered him on the system. I immediately wrote to the Department to ask, "When can he hear more news? Is he being assessed for the scheme? When might it start?" and so on. The response: radio silence. I have not heard a thing. I know that the Department is busy, but if those schemes are to make any difference to our industrial sector, we ought to have some answers. My constituent should know whether he is being assessed under the scheme.
	We had a statement before this debate, and it was interesting that when my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who sits on the Select Committee on Treasury, asked the Chancellor whether he could identify one scheme, from among all the things that the Treasury has announced of late, that was operational and was benefiting companies in the real world in the UK, the Chancellor could identify only one. The deferral of VAT was the only scheme that he could identify as offering any help to any business in the UK today. That has to be a terribly sad indictment of a Government who have known that the economy is falling apart since last October.
	Lord Mandelson came to the Business and Enterprise Committee in early January to set out the steps that the Government were going to take. I challenged him on how speedily the measures would be operational, but I got the usual tardy response from the noble Lord about how everything would be all right. The general tenor of his response to me was: "How dare you ask such an impertinent question?" Yet here we are, on 16 March, and none of the schemes that we were told would be activated so speedily has happened.

Michael Fabricant: Just on the subject of VAT, is my hon. Friend aware that, like so many firms, John Lewis recently said that the reduction in VAT from 17.5 to 15 per cent., which was so costly to the taxpayer, has made no difference whatever to overall sales? In any case, on 1 January, it is going to go back up again, although we also have to ask, back up to what: will it go back to 17.5 per cent. or will it go up still higher?

Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government have struggled to find anybody, certainly in the retail sector, prepared to say that the 2.5 per cent. VAT cut has been successful. It has, in fact, been a burden to businesses as they struggle to try to deliver it to their customers—in the case of a restaurant, for example, without having to change the entire menu at lavish cost. All sorts of companies are affected; a car park in Bromsgrove has to run free days in order to recompense the public for their 2.5 per cent. VAT cut. As I say, it has been yet another burden to most businesses and it is certainly not obvious how it has encouraged consumer sales.
	When I went shopping at Marks and Spencer before Christmas, the store had 20 per cent. off; I have not returned since, despite the Government's provision of 2.5 per cent. off. We all know how customers behave and we all know that sales in shops have been much bigger than anything provided by the VAT cut. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) rightly said, we will also have to pay £12 billion back in the end.
	Actually, £12 billion is the cost of the measures in this Bill, and the money is much better spent on those measures than on a VAT cut, which barely anyone has noticed and even fewer feel was worth while. I thus genuinely wish the Minister well in executing Government policy to help UK plc, because it needs that help.

John Howell: I was struck over the weekend by the applicability to today's debate of comments made in the Health Committee. Let me remind the House of the conclusions of the Health Committee. Its report was
	"highly critical of policy design and implementation, which... has made meaningful evaluation of initiatives impossible."
	It went on to say that
	"governments have rushed in with insufficient thought, a lack of clear objectives, have failed to collect adequate baseline data, made numerous changes and not allowed time for policies to bed in."
	It went on to recommend that policies be introduced
	"with clearly defined goals and robust measurements for success."
	Before we roll this Bill forward, relevant questions need to be asked about some of those issues and how they apply to the entirety of the Government's approach to the industrial and business sector.
	We need to know what the Government are trying to achieve with this money. I have read the descriptions in section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and they are obviously necessary to release the money, but they should not be sufficient to release it. We need to understand the Government's strategy; it must not be hidden behind words in continuing discussions that lead to no action being taken.
	It is particularly relevant for us to ask about the context of the disbursement funds, about how the Government view the business and industrial landscape and what it will be like post-recession. It is pretty clear from numerous Government statements that they think that the landscape post-recession will be very similar to what it was pre-recession. I do not believe that that will be the case at all. There will be fundamental changes in the way people deal with credit, for example, yet we see no initiative or great thinking to take that forward.
	A number of hon. Members have picked up on the issue of the car industry. Money has been thrown at it, but what has it actually achieved? The Minister may recall that in a debate on a statement of 27 January, I put it to him:
	"I have listened to the statement twice and I am none the wiser as to how many new cars the money will help to sell. Would the Minister like to tell us?"—[ Official Report, 27 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 179.]
	It is, perhaps, not surprising that the Minister did not like to tell us. He merely said that it was all in the form of guarantees, and that therefore everything was all right. I do not think that answers of that kind take us much further towards being able to judge whether the money is appropriate and whether it is being well spent.
	I should like the Minister to confirm that the car makers are yet to receive any of the money, and to set out the framework in which its use will be evaluated: the conditions, the success criteria, how value for money will be judged, and the method and speed of implementation. If the Minister thinks that he has answered the value-for-money question simply by saying that guarantees are better than grants, he has failed to appreciate that the House deserves to see below the top level, and to know how value for money is to be established as individual amounts are disbursed.
	All this bears the signs of pure, blind panic. We have seen a bank recapitalisation which is failing to get money moving and to establish the necessary conditions. Other Members have already spoken of the confusion and difficulty facing, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises. That was brought home to me on Thursday evening when, in my constituency, I hosted a recession networking event. I brought together businesses and local providers of services, in both the public and private sectors, to help companies in recession. Making sense of the help being offered by the 20 or so representatives had been an impossible task for many businesses—and why should they have to do it themselves anyway? Why should things not be in clear English and easy to understand?
	I must tell the Minister that the event was a great success. I believe that it was attended by just under 150 people, and I think that they all benefited from talking to the providers as well as to each other. But is it not an indictment of the situation we are in, which the Government have made no real effort to improve, that 150 people felt the need to attend such an event because they could not work out what to do by themselves?

John Penrose: This has been a short debate. That may be simply because this is a relatively uncontroversial Bill, but I am saddened to note that the Minister has sat in pretty much solitary splendour on the Labour Benches. No Labour Back Benchers have spoken, although one or two are present and their presence has been much appreciated. It strikes me as incredible that at a time of some of the worst economic conditions that we have experienced for not just one generation but probably several, not a single, solitary Labour Back Bencher thought it important enough and could care enough to turn up and add his or her tuppence-worth. Labour Members apparently did not think it important not only to support their Minister in what he is trying to do, but to try to ensure that their constituents and people around the country understood that they really care about the parlous economic conditions in which businesses are trying to operate.
	However, a number of Members did speak—most, but not all, were Conservative Members, although there were contributions from Liberal Democrats as well—and a number of common themes featured in their speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) in particular, but others as well, asked for more details about the schemes that the Bill is supposed to support. The Minister did his level best. He is a decent man, and he tried to ensure that we all understood the various Government-announced schemes for which the funds would be used. I am sure that that was deeply appreciated, but it is clear from what was said by others today that he needs to say a bit more, if possible, in his response to the debate.
	Let me pick up a couple of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. It seems that neither the 1982 Act nor the Bill provides for assistance to either banks or insurance companies, but a number of the loan guarantee schemes that we have discussed today involve banks in one way or another. If they do not involve banks, they involve finance arms of car companies and others which—if not outright banks and holders of banking licences—are near-banks, and are certainly the subject of much thought on the part of the Financial Services Authority at present. Will they be excluded from the Bill's provisions, in which case will the Government need to come up with funding through some other route, or will it be possible to use the financing under the Bill to support such various different schemes?
	I understand that the provisions of the Bill are not allowed to apply to areas that have been granted assisted area status. The principal areas with such status at present are Cornwall, the west coast of Wales, the north-west coast of Scotland and the whole of Northern Ireland. If the measures under discussion cannot apply to firms that are based in, or operate in, those areas, how will the Minister be able to make sure that the money raised is directed towards, for example, a car company that has dealerships in districts with assisted area status? Will he offer clarification on that, so that it is put on the record not only for Members of this House, but for the many rather confused members of the business community? This afternoon, we have heard many examples of the incredibly complicated plethora of schemes.
	It is not just the number of schemes that is the problem, large and numerous though they are—and they were read out with careful diction by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk). As he also pointed out, each one of them has not only its own scheme, but its own application forms and terms and conditions. Therefore, if anybody trying to make an honest living by running a business wants to apply for one of these schemes, they almost have to hold a PhD in Government finance before they can hope to access it. That inevitably means that they are being distracted from the vital day-to-day business of adding value and creating wealth, and making and preserving jobs, and instead are having to focus on the best way to navigate their way through labyrinthine Government bureaucracy, which is clearly not an intelligent or productive use of anybody's time.
	It is also worth while surveying the history behind the Bill. The Minister correctly pointed out in his opening remarks that this all started back in 1982 with a relatively modest amount of money: £1.9 billion. That was still a significant amount of money, however, particularly in those days; it was far from small potatoes. It is instructive to note how that cumulative total limit has grown. In the first 20 or so years, it grew very slowly—from £1.9 billion to just under £4 billion. However, since then—from shortly after the turn of the millennium—we have experienced, as a result of this Government's hyperactivity and the debt-fuelled boom in the country's economy, what is described in business terms as a hockey-stick increase. If we were to graph the rise in the cumulative limit, we would see that it increased very slowly for a long time, and in the past five or six years shot up. As a result, whereas the sum was £1.9 billion in 1982, we are now asked to agree an increase from about £6.1 billion to, in theory, a maximum total of £16 billion. I am afraid that if we ever needed an illustration of the speed with which the wheels have fallen off the Government's economic carriage, that is it.
	The most frequently made and most damning point has been about the problem of implementation and delivery. That point has been made in various parts of the House—I was going to say in "all parts" of the House, but I am afraid there have not been any contributions from the Labour Back Benches. Many people would agree with the principles that the Government are trying to pursue, particularly in their various different loan guarantee schemes, but they have been woefully inadequate in turning their fine words into action—into something practical that business people can get their teeth into and their hands on—by making sure that the banks are starting to lend and that the various different loan guarantee schemes actually function.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out, the working capital scheme was supposed to be the Government's flagship scheme for getting credit moving in the economy. It was announced way back in January, but as of last week it had not guaranteed a single loan. The enterprise finance guarantee scheme was supposed to help small firms. It was announced in January, but the Federation of Small Businesses says that only 8 per cent. of its members can find a bank that is actually offering it. The loan guarantee scheme for car manufacturers—much discussed this afternoon—was announced in January, but the Government have only just asked for applications from firms needing help, and they have not disbursed a single penny so far. To be fair, Lord Mandelson realised that the scheme was not moving fast enough. He saw it was in trouble and he said that he would "investigate" why it was not getting under way. But as far as anyone can see, the investigation involved sending a junior Minister round to No. 11 Downing street to knock timidly on the Chancellor's door and ask him—"Please, if he wouldn't mind awfully and it wasn't too much trouble"—to pull his finger out.
	That serves to illustrate the problem. We did not need an investigation into the difficulties. The problem was plain for everyone to see: dithering and spin instead of decisive, practical action. We did not need investigations or inquiries; we needed action—we needed Lord Mandelson to sit down with the Chancellor and have what is known in the Foreign Office as a full and frank exchange of views. We need the two of them to put the needs of the country ahead of party rivalries and personal wrangling over who is supporting whom in the running to become the next leader of the Labour party.
	That, however, was not what happened. Britain's businesses did not get the prompt action they needed. Instead, what we got was weeks and months of bureaucratic constipation where nothing happened at all, and then, last week, Lord Mandelson lost his temper and started blaming people. He blamed the Treasury. He blamed the Bank of England. He blamed pretty much anyone he could think of. But the people of Great Britain knew exactly who was really to blame: him, and this Government.
	The tragedy is that this is not just an internal Whitehall squabble where the only winners and losers are a few politicians and bureaucrats. This is deadly serious, because for every day of ministerial indecision, inaction and incompetence, more people lose their jobs, more companies go bust, and more investors lose faith in Great Britain. Rather than losing his temper and lashing out at his colleagues in Government, the Secretary of State needs to buckle down, as should his Ministers. They need to realise that they may have announced something and got a few headlines, but it will not happen unless they roll up their sleeves and get personally involved. They need to forget about the press releases and glossy announcements and get stuck in to the grubby, messy business of implementation.
	The trouble is that that is not likely to happen with this Secretary of State and this Government. They are creatures of PR and spin. They have spent the past 15 years doing it, and it is too late to expect them to change now. Leopards cannot change their spots. That is the tragedy of this recession. If they had moved faster and more effectively, they could have made it shorter and easier for all of us, but they did not, and now the whole country is paying for their dithering and delay. Every community in every part of Britain is feeling it: lost jobs, ruined companies, broken hopes. That is why people are increasingly coming to the same conclusion: it is time for a change.

Ian Pearson: Let me say at the outset that I am glad that the official Opposition recognise the need for these additional powers. They are necessary, as they cover expenditure that may need to be incurred in the future to provide support for industry, and we all want that support to be provided.
	The key points made in the debate fall into several categories. The first point I want to reply to is whether there are too many Government schemes and programmes. I recognise that there has been significant growth in the number of schemes over the years, which is why the Government, with the support of the CBI and others, introduced the business support simplification programme. That is also why we now have a programme of support called Solutions for Business, which works alongside the real help for business initiatives we have announced.
	I reject entirely the over-exaggerations that are sometimes made by Opposition Members. I do not believe that one needs a PhD in Government finance to understand the programmes of support out there. I suggest that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and others who find the schemes confusing should visit the Directgov website or the real help section of the Business Link website, where they will be able to see the wide range of assistance that is available.
	Secondly, may I say something about the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which links to the points made by a number of hon. Members, before I move on to discuss the issues to do with delivery? The scheme covers more than 95 per cent. of all businesses in the UK. It is available to businesses with a turnover of up to £25 million and can provide Government loan guarantees at a rate of 75 per cent. for loans from £1,000 to £1 million. It has been welcomed by industry and, in terms of delivery, it is making progress. I recognise that when companies are facing financial difficulties in a world of 24-hour news, expectations are rightly high. More than 1,100 businesses have now been registered by lenders as eligible for support with potential lending values of more than £110 million. In the past week alone, potential lending of more than £30 million has been registered. That shows that real progress has been made.
	I would say to hon. Members who might be interested in examining the facts that when one is in effect launching a new product, it takes some time to be established in the marketplace. That is the case with the enterprise finance guarantee and it probably explains some of the survey findings from the Federation of Small Businesses. All the major banks that have been participating in the scheme—I think there are 19 active lenders now, so those banks participating in the scheme include more than just the major lenders—have been training their staff at a variety of levels on the enterprise finance guarantee and how it operates. Banks are reporting approval rates in line with commercial lending approval rates of about 70 per cent. As the product becomes more established in the marketplace, we will see it continuing to spend. The fact that more than 1,100 businesses have to date shown themselves to be eligible and the fact that they are being considered by banks show that there is some significant take-up.
	In some cases, having considered an application from a company, banks will decide even under the terms of the enterprise finance guarantee that they do not want to make the loan. Typically, that would be because a bank believed that the business could not service the loan. Clearly, we cannot support banks providing irresponsible lending. The enterprise finance guarantee has to be there for viable businesses, but it is right that the banks have to make the final decisions based on the lending criteria. We are making progress with the enterprise finance guarantee scheme and I hope that I have shown that.

Mark Prisk: My argument was that Business Link and Ministers advised that the ability to convert an overdraft was specifically included in the scheme, yet the bank in question excluded the business on that very point, and not on a wider issue. I am not trying to ask the Minister to investigate an individual business but, whatever he may have been told, all the advice that we are getting from businesses suggests that the training on the ground in the high street banks simply is not there. When the Minister says that we are making progress, that rather contradicts what the noble Lord Mandelson loves to do, which is to go on ITN, as he did on 14 January, and say, "The scheme is open for business." Of course, the scheme he mentioned has not even started.

Ian Pearson: As I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman, the major lending banks have all been training their staff. There is no doubt that as the scheme is a new product, some people will not have received the training that they might need in the future, but it is important to recognise that the scheme has only been up and running relatively recently.
	With lots of these programmes, one cannot suddenly say, "Rustle me up a spending programme that will get £1 billion of taxpayers' money out of the door within a week." I do not think that our taxpayers would expect the Government to do that. We need to ensure that we are effective in what we do by ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money and that our programmes are properly monitored and evaluated. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case with the enterprise finance guarantee.
	I also want to cover the points made about the working capital scheme. The scheme is not open to businesses to apply to, and I think that there has been some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches. We are in advanced negotiations with the banks on guaranteeing some extensive loan portfolios under the working capital scheme, which will help to secure the working capital that is available to many companies in the country. It will also free up additional capital in the process. When we make announcements on the scheme, as we will, hon. Members will be able to see the scale of the activity, but the scheme is not available to businesses.
	Let me explain the automotive assistance programme. Whereas businesses with a turnover of up to £25 million, regardless of their sector, can be eligible under the enterprise finance guarantee, we have introduced a scheme through the automotive assistance programme for businesses with a turnover of more than £25 million whereby they can access up to £2.3 billion in loan guarantees and, exceptionally, loans. A number of hon. Members talked about Government support for the car sector, and the programme is a key initiative. The hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Henley (John Howell) mentioned it, and I want to tell the hon. Member for Henley that the criteria for the scheme have been made publicly available. As it is relevant to companies in the automotive sector with a turnover of more than £25 million, we are talking about a relatively small number of companies—probably fewer than 200. I have written to most of them to explain the details of the scheme. That scheme is open for business.
	As I mentioned, we had a seminar last Wednesday when we went through some of the nuts and bolts of the scheme with the banks and with companies in the automotive supply chain, as well as with the major manufacturers. We want to see early applications and there is no reason why companies should not apply to us right now. We will endeavour to assess the applications as quickly as possible, because I recognise the need to support the automotive sector at this crucial time.

Mark Prisk: The working capital scheme was announced in January and we were told that it would be open on 1 March, if not before. When will it be operational?

Ian Pearson: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, it is operational now, in the sense that we are at the stage of advanced discussions with the banks on the packages that will be made available. I remind him that we are providing £10 billion in guarantees to support £20 billion in working capital lines continuing to be made available, freeing up additional working capital, as well. That is on top of the additional lending being made available to the economy as a result of the commitments we have secured from the banks participating in the asset protection scheme. RBS is committed to providing an additional £16 billion in lending to the business sector this year and, potentially, next; as for Lloyds Banking Group, the figure is £11 billion this year and next. That is significant additional lending, which we all recognise as important.
	Frankly, the points made by the Opposition would have a lot more credibility if they did not try to rewrite history every few months. At first they were in favour of recapitalising the banks; now they say they are going through a major lesson in humility, which seems to be born of an attempt to criticise the Government, when in fact they have no credible alternative plans whatsoever. I have sat on the Front Bench over the past months waiting to hear from the Conservatives a credible alternative policy or a suggestion about what should be done. It is one thing being in opposition and wanting to oppose the Government and, rightly, scrutinise what we do; but sometimes, it would be nice to have some constructive opposition and to hear a proposal.
	Let me deal with some of the other Government programmes that have been available. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) mentioned the capital for enterprise fund. It is important to note that, as he well knows, this is an investment fund—it is about equity and businesses seeking long-term investment, so it is not a quick fix. Some 231 businesses have already registered their interest in the scheme and, as with any other investment fund, we will need to undertake due diligence before making investments. It is a relatively small fund, but the provision of equity capital at this point in the economic cycle is needed by many businesses. The hon. Gentleman ought to be welcoming what we are doing. If he has different proposals and suggestions that he wants to make about what we should be doing to address the equity gap, let us hear them and hear how he is going to fund them. The Government are very clear and transparent about what we are doing and why.

Mark Prisk: Last November, we set out a national loan guarantee scheme—£50 billion, clear and simple. Have it, take it—why will the Government not act?

Ian Pearson: I notice that the hon. Gentleman said absolutely nothing about equity, which we were just discussing. His party has not costed his proposal for a national loan guarantee scheme. It looks very similar to the working capital scheme that we have introduced, but I do not want to play party politics with who thought the idea up first. However, it is clear that the working capital scheme will provide support for existing credit lines of companies. It is providing real help for business, and the hon. Gentleman ought to welcome it.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the scheme announced in the pre-Budget report on support for credit. As I hoped he would recognise, given that we have made this clear on a number of occasions, the £1 billion scheme that we announced then was turned into the £10 billion working capital scheme support programme that we have now announced, so we are getting on with delivering on that commitment.
	The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) made a number of points. Let me pick up on what she had to say about trade credit insurance. I appreciate the financial problems that a number of companies have as a result of the withdrawal of that insurance. As she knows, we are looking into these issues, because we are determined to do all we can to ensure that healthy and viable businesses survive. It is a complex area and it is essential that any intervention that might be designed is able to make a real difference. We should not be opening the taxpayer up to unacceptable risk, so there are some important issues there.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned regulation on business more generally. As she knows, we look very carefully at any plans for further regulations. We have a small business impact test, and common commencement dates for any regulations that need to be introduced, but she is right to say that we should be looking at regulation on business particularly closely during these difficult economic times.

Lorely Burt: I appreciate that trade credit insurance is a complex matter. However, Members from all parts of the House have been asking about this for a number of months. Can the Minister give any indication of when the Government might produce some proposals on that?

Ian Pearson: The best that I can say to the hon. Lady is that we continue to examine these issues very closely. It would not be appropriate to make announcements, and I would only be criticised by the Conservative party for making them and then—well, it is just not the right thing to do at the moment.
	The hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about what she felt was a double guarantee. On the enterprise finance guarantee, we have a specific provision whereby it will not be appropriate for lenders to take any form of direct charge against the principal residence of someone who is being loaned to. She also mentioned the capital for enterprise fund. As I said, fund managers have been appointed and we are looking to explore with the fund how it can help businesses. I hope that they will be making investments shortly.
	Before I finish, I want to make two points, the first of which is on value for money. I think it important to recognise that, in a Bill such as this, which provides cover for the provision of future expenditure, we are not actually incurring that expenditure. The normal parliamentary accountability processes still have to be gone through. There are also the normal processes of Government, and I want to assure the House that all expenditure is subject to Treasury Green Book approval requirements, which involve clear objective setting, monitoring and evaluation of programmes. Through all the programmes that we are introducing, we are looking to make sure that we introduce these measures in a thorough way that protects the taxpayer's interests.
	Lastly, I want to re-emphasise that, in doing all this, the Government believe that it is right to act. We need to provide real help to businesses now. We should not be protecting industry from international competition; we should not be propping up failed companies, nor seeking to run them from Whitehall. However, we can and must act in a strategic way to provide support where necessary to our businesses and where it can be used well, and in a way that will help us to get through this recession in the best possible shape and to come out the other side fighting for Britain's interests, ensuring that we have a strong business base for the future. We want to maximise the benefits for UK society of the investment that we make in UK companies. We want to do so in a way that delivers for the taxpayer, but that also delivers our companies in a healthy state, so that they can continue to weather this recession and come out the other side fighting, prosperous and successful.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	 Proceedings
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	 Programming Committee
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading.
	 Programming other proceedings
	6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.— (Steve McCabe.)
	 Question agreed to.

Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill (Money)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) any increase in sums paid out of money provided by Parliament attributable to provisions of the Act—
	(a) increasing the sum of £3,700 million specified in section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to £12,000 million, and
	(b) increasing the sum of £600 million so specified to £1,000 million,
	(2) any other increase attributable to the Act in the sums paid under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament,
	(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and
	(4) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—( Steve McCabe.)
	 Question agreed to.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate resumed.
	 Ques tion (12 March) again proposed,
	That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and bring about social change; notes that many hon. Members from all parts of the House are actively involved in the work of the UK Youth Parliament; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed for this year alone to hold its 2009 annual meeting in the Chamber of this House.

Christopher Chope: It is wonderful that we have three hours and 40 minutes to conclude the debate on this subject that was begun last week. Ever since 11 February, the Government have been intent on trying to prevent this matter from coming before this House for proper discussion. It is a great pity that they did not respond to the strong advice given to them by Mr. Speaker that the subject should be given specific allocated time in Parliament for debate—that has not happened and it has come on as a tail-end Charlie in successive debates.

Peter Bone: What sort of signal does my hon. Friend think the way in which the Executive have been behaving gives potential young parliamentarians?

Christopher Chope: They will have to make a judgment themselves as to what has been happening. This very day, I have been in communication with one of the elected members from the Dorset contingent of the UK Youth Parliament and I have spelt out to him how the Government have been trying to suppress debate on this subject. He is 14 years old and is one of three people from my constituency who were elected for Dorset in the UK Youth Parliament election; indeed, all three of the Dorset full representatives are from my constituency, so I hope that hon. Members will accept that I speak with some knowledge on this subject.
	I say that not least because I have been looking at what happened last year when the Youth Parliament held its annual meeting. Contrary to what the Deputy Leader of the House suggested last time we debated this subject, it was not the annual meeting of the Youth Parliament that was held in the Chamber of the other place last year, but a meeting of the Youth Parliament that went on for one morning. When I saw the proposal on the Order Paper that the meeting should take place as part of the "annual meeting", I looked up what had happened at last year's annual meeting of the Youth Parliament, and what I found caused me no little concern.
	The report of the opening meeting of the annual sitting of the Youth Parliament, which was held in Exeter university between Saturday 19 July and Tuesday 22 July 2008, begins by stating:
	"'Awwwright, my luvver?' Josh McTaggart and Lydia Cheyne...Procedures Group representatives for the South West, opened this year's Annual Sitting with some classic South West tradition. Dressed as farmhands, the two worked the crowd up while the Wurzels played into the hall. After welcoming the 300+ Members of Youth Parliament to Exeter University, Josh and Lydia began by introducing the Procedures Group; two representatives from each region...The crowd competed ferociously to give their regional rep the loudest cheers!"
	A video was then shown, because the planned speaker who had been announced, none other than the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), had not got there on time. After the video ended, he arrived and delivered his keynote speech. The report states:
	"He spoke for little more than 4 minutes, telling the Youth Parliament about Exeter's fantastic bars and nightclubs".
	Today, we have the report from the man who is supposedly responsible for the nation's health bemoaning the fact that too many young people are indulging in drinking at an early age, yet none other than a Health Minister was promoting as the sole reason for the Youth Parliament's being welcome in Exeter the fact that it has fantastic bars and nightclubs. We have some good bars in this place, but I am not sure whether they will be open to the members of the Youth Parliament, if it should ever be able to meet in this Chamber.
	Apparently, after the speech came questions to the Minister, including some about the credit crunch. The document, which is on the Youth Parliament's website, states that he
	"feverishly defended Gordon Brown's recent Government borrowing strategies, saying that these things had to be done in difficult times and it would not cause a significant problem later on. He stated that there would categorically not be a recession, but refused to say when he thought the 'credit crunch' would be over."
	It seems as though the Youth Parliament has been attracting people who do not really know what they are talking about, because obviously the Minister's prediction about there being no recession was wishful thinking and was extremely wide of the mark.

Tim Loughton: Does my hon. Friend's objection to the use of this Chamber by the elected members of the UK Youth Parliament for their debates hinge on the standard of their debate, which he is caricaturing—I base that on the comparison with the meetings of the UK Youth Parliament to which I have been—or the principle of their using this Chamber? Which is his greater concern?

Christopher Chope: I have concerns on both counts. My hon. Friend refers to meetings, in the plural. He will know that notwithstanding what the Prime Minister indicated—that there would be a meeting of the UK Youth Parliament in this Commons Chamber every year—the proposal now is that this meeting should be a one-off exercise. The question that I have asked one of the UK Youth Parliament representatives from Christchurch is what particular privilege he thinks has been earned by this year's members of the UK Youth Parliament to allow them to sit in this Chamber, given that that is to be denied to its subsequent members, as this is to happen for one year only.
	I could understand a case being made for the use of this Chamber by any number of different organisations, but the fact is that we have never used this Chamber for anything other than parliamentary debate. We do not even use it for parliamentary meetings—party meetings. If it had been used for party gatherings, one might have imagined that when Mr. Blair was lauding all the young women Members of Parliament who had been elected on a Labour party ticket in the 1997 general election, he might have chosen to have the photo-shoot in this Chamber, rather than somewhere else on the parliamentary estate. I can imagine a very strong case for an incoming Conservative Government with 400 or 500 Conservative MPs being able to say, "There is nowhere else large enough on the estate where we can meet following our great election victory, so why not take over the House of Commons Chamber for a meeting?" That would be wrong, because we should not abandon or abandon lightly the traditions of this House, which have meant that this Chamber is the one for those who have the privilege of being elected as Members of the real Parliament, not members of a mock parliament, whether it be a youth parliament, a Muslim parliament or any other parliament.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very good case. Does he agree that if the UK Youth Parliament were allowed to sit in this place for its annual meeting, it would set a precedent to allow other organisations to hold their meetings here? There would be no reason why other parliaments—the learning disability parliament or parish councils—should not hold their meetings here once we have allowed the Chamber to be used by someone else.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have put the cart before the horse. The first principle that we should debate is whether we wish this Chamber to be used for purposes other than those for which it has been used hitherto. If it is decided that we should use the Chamber for other purposes, we can work out whether the applications should be chosen by ballot, such as the one held for exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall area; by discussion; or by members of the Administration Committee, who—ironically, and I speak as a member myself—consider the detail of applications for exhibitions in the Palace, but have not been consulted on this point.

Peter Bone: If the Chamber is just a hall, why do we not rent it out on a commercial basis in this time of economic difficulty?

Christopher Chope: I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate on that subject. I would probably oppose such a proposal, but one could make a case for allowing, for example, the Chamber to be used as a film set. We could raise money for charity, for deserving young people across the world. One asks rhetorically, "Who could argue against that?"
	We do not yet know the financial cost of using the Chamber for one day for the annual meeting of the Youth Parliament, but we do know that when the Chamber in the other place was used for half a day, the cost was some £30,000 to £40,000. That was funded partly by this House and partly by a grant from the Ministry of Justice. One might wonder whether that was the best use of that money, in terms of educating a wider group of people about what we do in this place.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman will recall that some hon. Members who were present to support his view last week argue that unelected Ministers from the other place should be allowed to come to this House to answer questions from its Members. That would bring unelected people into this House to speak. Does he see any inconsistency in that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has cast his net fairly wide so far, but he should not go as wide as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is encouraging him to do.

Christopher Chope: I hope that my response falls within the terms of the debate, but I do not think that we should alter the system that we have, which has served this country well. People know that these green Benches can be sat on only by elected Members of the House of Commons. I speak as someone who had the misfortune of being defeated in a general election and I know how sad I was not to be able to come into this great Palace of Westminster and the House of Commons Chamber. But I accepted that, and I imagine that most members of the Youth Parliament would accept that although they may have aspirations to sit in this Chamber, those aspirations are best realised by getting elected to the real Parliament.

Edward Leigh: It is said that the Youth Parliament is different from any other organisation because it is uniquely representative, but I do not see why it is more representative than any other group, such as the pensioners' parliament. Is not it a corporatist view of society that we have to be sidelined into certain groups—youth, the elderly, trade unionists and employers? Dare I say it, it is almost fascistic, although people will not like me saying that, and that is not what we are about. This Parliament represents everyone in the United Kingdom, not parts of it.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	Westminster Hall has been used for special events on several occasions, such as the 300th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution. One could make an argument for making an exception to the conventions, although I would not support it, by saying that last year we should have allowed the Scouts to celebrate their centenary here. Following Baden-Powell's foundation of the Scouts, they have spread the gospel of youth activity not just in this country but throughout the world. Why should we allow the UK Youth Parliament and not the Scouts or the Girl Guides?

Kerry McCarthy: We could spend a long time—I suspect that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention—talking about other groups that might hypothetically want to use the Chamber in the future. Perhaps it would be better to turn the debate on its head and ask what would be the harm in letting the UK Youth Parliament use the Commons Chamber.

Christopher Chope: I hope that the hon. Lady will have a chance to make her own speech in a minute. It is the same with any tradition when people ask, "What would be the harm?" I think that the harm would lie in sending out a message from this Parliament that we were indulging the Youth Parliament and patronising young people in an unhealthy way by leading them to believe that an equivalence existed between being members of a mock parliament and being Members of a real Parliament. There is all the difference in the world between a mock parliament and a real Parliament.
	We know that the other place set a precedent when it allowed the final of the English-Speaking Union debating competition to take place in its Chamber. It allowed that once and decided that it would not do so again. Last year, the Youth Parliament was held there and, as I understand it, will not be invited back. I do not know whether that is an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), but she might well ask the same question when she brings a group of young people to visit the Palace. What harm would it do if she sat them down on the Front Bench and she went to sit on the Speaker's Chair? It probably would not do any physical harm, but either access to and use of this place is restricted to a particular group of individuals or it is not. If the Youth Parliament could come here, why should that be allowed for only one year? Why are the Government not proposing that every other organisation that wants to make a bid should be able to come here as well?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman mentions harm. I know that he loves this place, and admires and respects the workings of the House. Does he appreciate the harm that this debate is doing to the standing of this House in the eyes of the general public and how it is showing us as restrictive and elitist in denying the rights of these young people?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his various complimentary remarks about my involvement in the issue, but I could not disagree with him more. The Youth Parliament is a very young organisation. It was founded by Andrew Rowe—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, as he then was. I do not think that he ever envisaged that it would be a rival to this Parliament.
	It is interesting that so far in this debate, no one has drawn attention to the report that the Government themselves commissioned on the Youth Parliament, after the issue was considered by the Select Committee to which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) referred. Part 1 of the report says:
	"this Review suggests that UKYP"—
	that is, the United Kingdom Youth Parliament—
	"is not meeting the expectations of many of its stakeholders. Many stakeholders feel UKYP has tried to 'run before it can walk', making claims for itself that it is not able to substantiate, given its level of funding and isolation from much potential support."
	The complaints made include the complaint that the Youth Parliament is too English, that it is not in touch with other youth organisations, and that it is a group of people elected from various schools who have an impossible task in trying to represent the interests of young people collectively, because they do not have the time to be in touch with all the different youth organisations.

Bob Spink: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to when he said that, because the Youth Parliament is to come here, it may consider itself a rival to this Parliament? I do not see that at all. Without the Mace, which gives the Chamber its constitutional and legal significance, this place is just a set of green Benches. I really do not see the problem, and I do not think that the public do, either.

Christopher Chope: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view. He says that he does not think that there is a problem, but I happen to think that there is a problem. It is healthy that people will be able to express different points of view when we eventually get to hold a Division on the issue. That is the whole purpose of debate. I am not suggesting that everybody will agree. Earlier, I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in the Chamber. I know that he feels very strongly that the issue should be debated in our Chamber, and that is now happening.

Tim Loughton: We are having a debate about the right of other people to have a debate here. My hon. Friend mentioned our former and, sadly, late colleague Andrew Rowe, who set up the Youth Parliament almost 10 years ago, in July 1999, in the Houses of Parliament. This is where it started. If he were here today, it would be sad for him to witness us having this debate, 10 years on, about denying a one-off opportunity, to start with, to those people—

Philip Davies: To start with?

Tim Loughton: It is for us to debate whether there should be only that one event, or whether it could be the first of subsequent similar episodes. It is sad that although the organisation started here, we are seeking to stifle that debate 10 years on.

Christopher Chope: I do not think that we are seeking to stifle debate. Indeed, the people who supported the amendment on the Order Paper are people who were determined that there should be debate. The amendment was put in the way that it was to emphasise that we did not have any quarrel with the fact that there is a Youth Parliament, and to emphasise that we wished it well. We did not contradict the main substance of the Government's motion, but we drew attention to the fact that there are other places in the Palace of Westminster where it is possible for the Youth Parliament to hold its annual meeting.
	I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that we are not talking about a special, 10th anniversary meeting. As I understand it, the Government are not saying that because of Andrew Rowe's great achievement in setting up the organisation, for its 10th anniversary it should have the right to meet here on a one-off basis. If that were so, the question that I would put to my hon. Friend is: why were the Scouts not able to use the Chamber last year for their centenary? When he has answered that, we could talk about other youth organisations, too.
	My hon. Friend made a good point in the earlier debate, when he said that there is a difference between those from older age groups, who could themselves be elected to Parliament, and those from the under-18 age group, who are not eligible for direct election to Parliament, but my point to him is that there are a lot of other youth groups out there doing extremely valuable work with young people in much larger numbers than the Youth Parliament, and which were established much longer ago than the Youth Parliament. If we want to celebrate a particular landmark in the history of an organisation, there is a case for saying that we should allow some of our facilities to be used by it, but that is not the basis on which the Government have put the case for allowing the Youth Parliament to meet in this Chamber.
	I referred to the report that the Government commissioned on the subject. It extends to the best part of 200 pages. I will not refer to it in detail, but the executive summary is basically a cautionary tale to people who might otherwise get carried away with their enthusiasm for the Youth Parliament. It basically says that the Youth Parliament needs to communicate more closely with other young people, and certainly needs to be more representative of all the nations that form part of the United Kingdom.

John Leech: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, at a time when we are trying to encourage participation in the political process and to get young people interested in politics, we are discussing exactly the sort of initiative that would get young people more interested in politics and more likely to be involved in the Youth Parliament?

Christopher Chope: The event may encourage some people to get interested in politics, but of course we must remember that the Youth Parliament is not party political; in other words, it is non-ideological. Not long ago, I was re-reading the splendid book that our late and noble Friend John Biffen produced on this place. He reminds us of the fact that at the age of 14, he attended his first Conservative conference in Bridgwater and was an active member of the Young Conservatives. Then of course there is my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was, I think, 15 when he took the Conservative party conference's main platform by storm with his fantastic speech. Both those people, who were party members in their teens, went on to serve the nation really well as fully fledged Members of Parliament. They did not need a Youth Parliament to enable them to do that; all that they needed was a receptive party political organisation, namely the Conservative party.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea that we have to allow the Youth Parliament to use the Chamber to inspire its members to get into politics is nonsense? The fact that they are already members of the Youth Parliament shows that they are already interested in politics. If the purpose is to try to inspire people to get involved in politics by using the Chamber, surely we should allow youths who are not members of the Youth Parliament to sit here, because it is clearly they who are not interested in politics at the moment.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend, who is the enlightened voice of youth among us this evening, makes an important point. There is a lot to be said for encouraging young people to engage in real politics—that is, politics that involves not only being able to argue the case for a pressure group or interest group, but seeing things on a wider scale, and considering questions such as, "How will we raise the money to pay for this?"
	One of the Youth Parliament's campaigns is for subsidised fares for all young people. Obviously, a case can be made for that, but when the members of the Youth Parliament talk about that, they are acting more like a pressure group—a young version of the National Union of Students—than a Parliament. A Parliament would look at the wider context—at, for example, how such a proposal would be funded, where the savings would come from, and to what extent old people's concessionary fares would have to be adjusted to enable young people's concessionary fares to be introduced. Those are all worthy subjects of debate, but they are not quite the same as having a Parliament. Given the keen interest on the part of the Liberal Democrats in the debate, I hope that some of them have read in the  Official Report what their hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) said in our previous debate. He made the point that we were seeking to patronise one particular youth organisation while neglecting other important youth organisations.
	My amendment proposes that the Youth Parliament at its annual meeting this year should be able meet in Committee Room 14. I cannot remember whether it was the Deputy Leader of the House or someone else who said that it has already met there, so it does not need to meet there again. However, we are talking about it meeting in that room when the House is not sitting. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I wanted to organise a meeting in Committee Room 14 when the House was not sitting, we would be given a firm no, because those facilities are not available when the House is not sitting. It is not like meeting in that room when the House is sitting—we are talking about something quite distinct—and it would be possible for the Youth Parliament to be given a special privilege under my amendment, so that it could sit in Committee Room 14 when the House is in recess.
	We do not even know—perhaps some people do—the date on which the annual sitting is expected to take place. Last year, the annual sitting lasted three or four days at Exeter university. This year, the Government propose that the sitting last for only one day.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister looks as if he wants to intervene to tell us the date, and I would be grateful if he did.

Chris Bryant: I was just going to ask the hon. Gentleman if he is going to move his amendment.

Christopher Chope: Yes, I am. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to tell the House when he expects the annual meeting to take place. Will he provide us with that information? Perhaps not. That is the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves. We have been kept in the dark by the Government, and I am pretty disappointed by some of the members of my party. I believe that it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account and to try to scrutinise Government proposals. It seemed at one stage as if there were a collusive pact between the Front Benches to try to prevent the issue from being fully debated in the Chamber. However, other Members and I have asked that the Administration Committee look at the proposal, and it was implicit in what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) said in our previous debate that he supported that. If that is not the case, perhaps he will tell us later, but approval of the motion should be subject to advice in advance from the Committees of the House that are charged with that responsibility. That is exactly what happened in the other place. When the proposal was first mooted, it was submitted to the Information Committee for consideration, which resulted in a recommendation to the House as a whole.

Peter Bone: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I understand that Opposition Members have a free vote tonight. I am not sure whether that applies to Government Members. Has he received any indication as to whether this is being treated as a House matter or not?

Christopher Chope: The Deputy Leader of the House said that he did not regard this as a party political issue, and there was going to be a free vote for Government Members, including Ministers. I hope that is the case, too, for Conservative spokesmen, although earlier indications suggested that that might not be the case.  [ Interruption. ] Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who represents young people as a shadow Minister, can inform us as to whether it is a free vote for all members of the shadow ministerial team.

Tim Loughton: indicated assent.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is nodding, so I am pleased that we have made progress on that matter as well.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear, because he has not quite done so, that the Government motion proposes that only the 2009 annual meeting of the Youth Parliament be held in the Chamber? We could use it as an experiment to see whether it works. We should see how it turns out, then decide how to move forward in future.

Christopher Chope: We could do so, but that is not what the Deputy Leader of the House said. He did not say that this was some sort of experiment, and if it went well, it would open the floodgates for the Youth Parliament to meet here every year. He specifically ruled out the possibility that the whole annual meeting should be held here. He said that one day of the meeting should take place in the Chamber, thereby leaving in limbo the issue of what would happen on the other days. Will the Youth Parliament use other facilities in the House, and what arrangements will be made?

Gregory Campbell: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would deal with his amendment in some depth, given that we are discussing the rationale for the traditions of the Chamber and the House—and it is right and proper that we maintain them—and the allegations of elitism from the Government. His proposal goes some way towards addressing that issue, and I would certainly be grateful for some meat on the bones of the amendment.

Christopher Chope: Committee Room 14 is arguably the most important Committee Room in the House. There is a magnificent painting there that depicts what happened when the House rebuffed those who came along, on behalf of the King, seeking to arrest Members of Parliament, only to be told where to get off. The mere fact of members of the Youth Parliament going into that historic Committee Room and having explained to them the background to that painting would enable them to have a better understanding of the privileges associated with the House.

Edward Leigh: It is not just a picture on the wall—the room is redolent with history. It is where, for instance, Mr. Parnell lost his battle with the Irish Parliamentary party and lost his job as leader of that party in the 19th century. It is a very important room, and it is not to be sneezed at.

Christopher Chope: Certainly not—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When he used the expression, "not to be sneezed at", he picked up a theme from our previous debate that that room was not good enough for some reason. The letter that I have received from a Christchurch member of the Youth Parliament almost suggests, "Well, we have done the House of Lords. Now, let's do the Chamber." Where next?

Philip Davies: Buckingham palace.

Christopher Chope: Indeed.

Kerry McCarthy: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned that while consulting on his amendment he spoke to one of the Christchurch members of the Youth Parliament. Will he tell the House how many young people he consulted across his constituency on a wider basis, what proportion of them were in favour of using the Chamber, and what proportion of them were keener to use Committee Room 14?

Christopher Chope: I do not know whether the hon. Lady does so, but I have made it my business to try to encourage young people to gain an understanding of the workings of Parliament by taking on gap year students to work in my office. I am lucky to have had two such people working for me this year, and I can assure her that both of them, unprompted, think that the Government proposals are absolutely barking.
	I can tell the hon. Lady that I am the proud father of two teenage children and that they have similar views. In situations such as this, the Government would say that I had consulted widely. I would not say that, but I have consulted. I am sure that there are people on both sides of the argument but up to now, with the exception of one person, I have found among young people only those on my side of the argument.
	As we know in this Chamber, in order to make a point, it does not need to be made at length. However, it is important to recognise that the amendment is not some sort of wrecking amendment. It is an attempt to find a constructive way forward which would enable us as Members of the House to recognise the important work that the Youth Parliament has done, to applaud Andrew Rowe's founding of it, to hope that it continues to go from strength to strength, and to give it some encouragement by saying that when Parliament is not in Session, the Youth Parliament should be able to hold meetings in Committee Room 14 and thereby enjoy all the history associated with that Room.

Peter Bone: Before my hon. Friend concludes his opening remarks, will he turn to the question of costs, and what sum might be involved if the Youth Parliament were allowed to use the Chamber?

Christopher Chope: I referred to that fleetingly before. Obviously, nothing is without its cost, and the costs of the meeting in the House of Lords were apparently between £30,000 and £40,000. We have not yet heard from the Minister what the costs might be to hold a one-day meeting in this Chamber during the annual sitting of the Youth Parliament, but the costs of security and supervision would be not inconsiderable. I should have thought that we would be entitled to know about that in advance and to discuss whether that represented good value for money. Some people might reach the conclusion that that sum would be better invested in promoting the Youth Parliament in individual constituencies.

Tim Loughton: I am not an expert, but my hon. Friend might find that a large part of that cost relates to the travel costs of the members coming from various parts of the United Kingdom. Those are standard costs, which would be payable wherever the UK Youth Parliament chose to meet. I should not have thought that the additional staff costs of keeping the Chamber open on a particular day would be prohibitive. He might be slightly cautious before he apportions to this place costs that are fixed for the Youth Parliament.

Christopher Chope: I am innately cautious; that is why I am a Conservative. I refer to the information that I obtained from the House of Commons Library. The evaluation report carried out following the meeting in the other place stated:
	"Parliament's Education Service funded the majority of the costs associated with the event in a grant of £28,120 to the UK Youth Parliament. The Ministry of Justice also contributed £5,000 towards the event. The House of Lords covered certain costs and committed significant resources to the event, including senior staff time and the use of the Chamber itself."
	That is a reference to a report done by Lucy Crompton, "UK Youth Parliament Debate in the House of Lords 2 May 2008".
	My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an important issue. I am glad that he recognises that. Surely a proper evaluation of the implications and what is involved should have been carried out in advance of the proposal. That has not happened, and it may mean that there are fewer resources available to fund the cost of travel for school visits to the whole of the Palace of Westminster, for example, rather than individual visits by members of the UK Youth Parliament. If that is the consequence of allowing the Youth Parliament to use the Chamber, we should know about it.
	It is significant that the Speaker has not yet made a statement about the matter. It is still somewhat up in the air whether, if the Youth Parliament meets in the Chamber, he will preside over those proceedings in the same way as the Lord Speaker presided in the House of Lords debate. Although the Minister said in the previous debate that the Mace would not be used, there was some suggestion of a mock Mace being used, which was not ruled out.

Chris Bryant: I am happy to rule that out.

Christopher Chope: I am glad to have been able to provoke the Minister to respond. Even if he does not know the date of the proposed meeting, he knows that a mock Mace will not be used for the mock Parliament.
	There is an enormous number of details, which I shall not dwell on, but which should be the subject of a proper debate. The debate on the detail should take place not in the Chamber, but in one of the appointed Committees of the House. Before we vote on this motion, we should have considered a motion that this House takes the view that the Chamber should be used for purposes other than those for which it has been used hitherto. If we had established that principle first, and that principle had been agreed, as a democrat I would be the first to accept that we would then have opened ourselves to all sorts of bids from different organisations wanting to make use of our Chamber. All those bids could be the subject of scrutiny and debate by the Administration Committee.

Andrew Pelling: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in many ways the House is about promoting democracy, and that by bringing young people here, we would be aiding that role? I have met Croydon, Central representatives of the Youth Parliament, and I believe they would give almost as good a speech as the hon. Gentleman is giving this evening.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend goes down that long-trodden path of trying to use flattery. I know that his intentions are generous, but I will not be seduced by that. I hope that he will have a chance to make his own speech later.
	I do not accept my hon. Friend's premise that the promotion of democracy in the Youth Parliament will be enhanced by the Youth Parliament's being able to use the Chamber as opposed to being able to meet in Committee Room 14. If the argument is about giving publicity to the Youth Parliament, he and I are contributing to that process by participating in this debate. In our previous debate, the Deputy Leader of the House suggested that one of the great merits of our debate was that it would give publicity to the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, but nobody could argue that in itself giving young people the right to sit on these green Benches enhances democracy.
	Allowing young people to participate in party political activity, conferences and young people's political organisations is very helpful for democracy, and I regret very much the reduced activity in all our political parties, including—I am not sure which political party my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) belongs to now— [Interruption.] Very well, the wilderness political party. I gave the example of the late Lord Biffen and the current example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, but there have been many other people who gained an appetite for engaging in democracy and debate through the political process, without coming to visit Parliament and without having to sit on the green Benches.

Brian Binley: The Deputy Speaker himself.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend indicates that the Deputy Speaker might want to join in the debate, but unfortunately I do not think he is allowed to do so. Perhaps that is another of the conventions or rules that will soon be waived.

Brian Binley: With due deference to my hon. Friend's remark, I was simply agreeing that many of us came up through political youth organisations, and I was paying tribute to the Deputy Speaker's great achievement in one of those particular movements. That was my point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Echoing the words of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the idea of flattery getting the hon. Gentleman anywhere, I have to say that it will not work this evening. The Chair should not be brought into the debate, however well-intentioned the hon. Gentleman's comments might have been.

Christopher Chope: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I congratulate my hon. Friend on succeeding in getting you to your feet in this debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might not take that kind of intervention; I say to the hon. Gentleman that he must guard against repetitious argument.

Christopher Chope: I certainly would not want to go down that road.
	To sum up my case on the amendment, this is a serious subject that has not been addressed by the Government with sufficient clarity or gravity up to now. Are we on the verge of approving a precedent that this Chamber can be used for other purposes and by other organisations and will there be a free-for-all in future? If that is what is being proposed, I am against it, and right hon. and hon. Members need to have their eyes open to the full implications of the setting of a precedent.
	Is the measure meant to enable the Prime Minister to save face because he made a statement—without consulting Mr. Speaker—that this Chamber would be available for the Youth Parliament every year? He has been trying to make that happen since then, and has he now, in some shabby compromise, been forced into allowing it to be used only for one year? If that is the sort of shabby compromise underlying this proposal, let us be clear about it. I have my suspicions, and I think that this motion is probably the result of a shabby compromise.
	Underlying it all is the fact that a lot of young people are elected to the Youth Parliament, and aspire to be elected to it, and I have not yet heard why this year's cohort of youth parliamentarians should have exclusive use of this Chamber in a way that will be denied to subsequent cohorts. I fear that this Government's proposal patronises young people in an awful way.

Edward Leigh: Let us cut to the quick. This proposal is about trying to look trendy and to suck up to the youth vote. In fact, youth find that patronising. The one thing that they cannot stand is politicians who are mutton dressed up as lamb. That is the real truth. The Government will not get any credit at all from the youth of this country for this proposal.

Christopher Chope: As my hon. Friend would have said, we are not going to be treated as cool by using the expression "cool". My children say, "Whatever else you do, Daddy, don't use the expression 'cool'." The Government are trying to appear to be cool, but as my hon. Friend says, young people will not be taken in. At the end of the day, this proposal would be a craven capitulation to the misguided agenda of the Executive. It would be pandering to what they see as populism, grossly indulgent and an insult to all those people who have honoured this Chamber in times past, who would be nervous about setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
	I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, leave out "the Chamber" and insert "Committee Room 14".

Michael Jabez Foster: My contribution will be of the briefest nature because I do not intend to compete with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), thus enabling the debate to go on so long that there will not be a vote. It will be a real challenge to democracy if, after last week's debate, we have yet another debate that does not come to a conclusion.
	I am unashamedly in favour, not of something that is cool, but of something realistic, fair, reasonable and that shows respect and encouragement to the young people of the UK Youth Parliament. Of course it is a privilege to be in this place. Every one of us, as we enter this building, appreciates that it is a place of great history and great precedent, but at the end of the day, as someone said earlier, it is a row of green Benches—it is a place. That is what matters most. It has that history, but that adds to the reasons why young people should be encouraged and have the opportunity to take part.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman expresses the view that this is just a room, a place with green Benches, which has been expressed by one or two other Members during these debates. Does he, therefore, regard the Speaker's Chair as being just a chair, and does he believe that it should be available for members of the Youth Parliament to use?

Michael Jabez Foster: I have no problem with that, and I hope that Mr. Speaker would not either, although perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the Chairman's chair. But that is not relevant. What matters is respect for the office and the way in which we conduct ourselves, and we certainly do not show respect for this place by talking out an obvious and reasonable proposition. That is what brings this place into disrepute, not whether we sit or stand, or what we do in this place itself.

Peter Bone: rose—

Michael Jabez Foster: I will not give way because I intend to make a brief contribution.
	It is important that we do not talk down the UK Youth Parliament. Its representatives in my area have contributed significantly, over many years, to advancing the views of young people, which is surely what they are there to do. The fact is that they are not a mock Parliament, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, but a real representative body with reasonable turnouts. And those turnouts of young people are somewhat greater than the ones we sometimes get. That is the truth of it.
	Young people do not vote for we fuddy-duddies, as they see us. Wherever we sit, whatever we say, whatever our purpose and whatever our intentions, they do not vote for us. Why is that? They do not vote for us, because we are not connected. I do not believe that we can connect by being "cool", by using certain expressions or by being on Facebook—although I wonder how many of us are—but young people should have the opportunity to talk the real language of the people whom they represent. That is not as partisan, in the narrow sense, as has been suggested. For example, in Hastings, we have an excellent youth council that has recently put together a Myplace bid, and has succeeded. In turn, that council works with the Hastings seniors forum on concessionary bus fares and issues of common concern. Young people are real politicians.

Philip Hollobone: If the measure is passed, would the hon. Gentleman hope that other organisations and other Parliaments would also take advantage of the offer, or would he see it as strictly a one-off, with no other such examples following in future?

Michael Jabez Foster: I do not have a problem with the proposal having a wider application. I do not share the view that this matter is precious, or more especially that we are precious. This is an important place, but we are not that important. The truth is that much of this debate is about us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said, it is a question of only elected posteriors being allowed to sit on these green Benches. I do not understand that concept. We are just ordinary representatives of people. We got voted for, and it is a great privilege to be here, but the members of the Youth Parliament were voted for, too.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this place is precious? It is special, and the Speaker's Chair is special, but that is only the case when the Mace is in its place, which is what gives it its constitutional and legal significance? Otherwise, it is just a group of green Benches.

Michael Jabez Foster: I agree entirely. The Mace is important, of course; it symbolises the supremacy of the House. The hon. Gentleman's point is a good one.

Brian Binley: Does the hon. Gentleman know of the T.S. Eliot poem that states that there are places
	"Where prayer has been valid"?
	The argument is that that activity enhances and heightens the place itself. Does he agree that the activity that takes place here "has been valid" and that it heightens the meaning of this place?

Michael Jabez Foster: It might do and it might not; the truth is that some debates in this place—including this one, perhaps—are evidence of the fact that it can go to lows as well as highs. What really matters is what we do in this place—the decisions that we come to and their relevance to the young and the wider sphere of people.

Philip Davies: rose—

Michael Jabez Foster: I will not take another intervention—not out of disrespect, but because I believe that we should show respect and encouragement to young people who want to get involved and I do not intend to take lots of interventions and be party to talking this debate out. I hope very much that the House will make a decision tonight. We expect young people to respect us; I hope that we will not show disrespect to young people through this sort of charade, which has everything to do with preciousness and nothing to do with democracy.

Tim Loughton: I had not intended to speak on this subject when I was perchance in the Chamber for round one last week. However, there have been many contributions and I thought I would add my own. I support the Government motion, but not without criticism.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on four points. I entirely respect his views and those of hon. Friends who agree with him. Like us all, my hon. Friend is engaging in this debate because we respect the Chamber, Parliament and parliamentary conventions, and we do not want anything to dilute or undermine them. We all speak from that perspective.
	Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is right that we should debate the issue. The Government have not been terribly smart in putting the motion on the Order Paper with the intention of sneaking it through at the end of the day. Too many items of business are sneaked through. The Minister might acknowledge in retrospect that there was more interest in this subject than he may have thought when it was timetabled for the end of the day.

Peter Bone: That is one of the crucial points. If the Government had provided time for debate and tabled a proper motion that laid out all the different criteria, many Members would have felt more inclined to participate. It is the way the matter has been handled that has annoyed so many Members of Parliament.

Tim Loughton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right; I shall come to that point in a minute.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on a third point: Front Benchers did not discuss the matter properly so that everybody knew what was going on and could make arrangements accordingly. If it had been so discussed, the Minister would have received advice saying that there was great interest in there being a proper airing of the issues.
	My fourth point of agreement is that the motion lacks detail. I do not know whether the Youth Parliament's sitting here will be a one-off or how much it would cost, although I do not have a big problem with the House of Lords example that has been cited. We have had some clarification on whether the Mace would be here and whether the Speaker would be in the Chair. However, there are still a lot of question marks and the House is entitled to a little respect and to the detail. I do not think that there would be much to alarm us, but we need to know it.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman raised one issue on which there is no lack of clarity: the motion on the Order Paper refers to only one event.

Tim Loughton: That is giving rise to questions about whether the event will be annual or a one-off. I do not have a problem with that, because we need to experiment; we need to have a pilot and to learn from it. With those riders, I will support the Government motion but not the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
	We have now spent more time on this debate than is spent on a normal half-day Opposition day debate, so we are giving the subject a good airing. Rather than using this time to discuss whether there should be a Youth Parliament debate in this place, we should be debating the merits of the UK Youth Parliament—whether it is doing a good job, how we could encourage it to do better, whether it should be better funded, why it is not truly representative of the United Kingdom in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and how we could better engage with it. We could discuss how youth parliamentarians could visit more often to speak to Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers and engage with Select Committees and so on.

David Heath: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He mentioned the length of this debate. It is instructive that this debate is taking a great deal longer and has a much higher participation rate than the debate on the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill, which spent £12 billion of public money and attracted hardly a handful of colleagues. Perhaps nowadays Members of Parliament do not get out of bed for less than £1 trillion of profligacy.

Tim Loughton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It makes us look a tad silly when we spend a lot of time on a procedural measure rather than on legislation that will affect a lot of people in the wider world.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I will, but then I would like to make progress. I do not want to talk the motion out, because I think it a good idea.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that we do not talk this out and that we get the opportunity to vote this evening. He mentioned Scotland, which sends representatives to the UK Youth Parliament. However, we also have the Scottish Youth Parliament, which meets quite regularly in the Scottish Parliament, with no fuss whatever—even the Conservative group there is totally supportive. What is so different about this place?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. My point was that this is a UK Youth Parliament that does not receive funding for its activities north or west of the borders of England. We need a debate on how we can make it a truly representative UK Youth Parliament, drawing perhaps on the good practice and examples of the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Funky Dragon and the Northern Ireland Youth Forum.
	We should remember how the UK Youth Parliament was formed. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch duly gave recognition to our late lamented colleague Andrew Rowe, who set up the Youth Parliament 10 years ago—

James Plaskitt: Don't call him Julie!

Tim Loughton: I said "duly", with a "d".
	The Youth Parliament is not a party political organisation, but an independent national charity. After 10 years, there are flaws in it; that is why we should be debating how to make it better. However, after all those years it has surely come of age and deserves a little more respect than has been implicit in some of the caricatures of its activities that we have heard in this debate. Each local education authority in England represents a UKYP constituency. Elections take place every year, and more than 550,000 young people have participated in those elections in recent years. There have recently been elections to UK youth cabinets and parliaments; in my county in west Sussex there were record turnouts. In one school in my constituency there was a 96.5 per cent. turnout to vote in the west Sussex youth cabinet, which went on to elect UKYP members as well.
	In June, I shall host an event in which schools with the highest such turnouts will receive an award. Pupils from them are coming to this place to get recognition of that.  [Interruption.] They will not come to the Chamber but to one of the meeting rooms, because it is not a UK-wide event.
	We should look at the good work that the UK Youth Parliament has done. It is democratically elected and has annual sittings, some of which I have attended. Far from what some of the caricatures have implied, some really impressive work goes on. Last year there were debates about youth transport, the environment, the age of participation in elections and other matters important not just to young people but to the population as a whole.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate should not be caricatured so that those who think that the Youth Parliament does a good job are automatically deemed to be in favour of allowing the Chamber to be used, and those who oppose the Youth Parliament's sitting in this Chamber are deemed to be against the Youth Parliament per se? I am happy to accept that the Youth Parliament is a good thing; I just object to the idea of its using this Chamber.

Tim Loughton: I fear that the debate has been slightly muddied with some caricatures of UK Youth Parliament proceedings in other places. That is unfortunate, unrepresentative and inaccurate. I hope that we will have a debate on the principle of whether its sitting should be held in the Chamber.
	I turn now to the UK Youth Parliament's select committees. As a shadow Front Bencher, I have engaged with them, and there is enormous scope for them to engage with our Select Committees. Its select committees draw up manifestos. They have made some important observations on sexual health, for example, which informed the Government's recent decision on the teaching of that subject in schools. They do a very important job.

Charles Hendry: I declare an interest as a trustee of the UK Youth Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best examples of its doing good work was its sitting in the other place, where we saw an enormous number of young people coming together to talk about very serious issues in an extremely constructive and productive way? Those of us who had the opportunity to sit in on and watch that debate saw the very best of young people—it was a very good representation.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a trustee of the UK Youth Parliament, he speaks with great authority on the subject.
	The debate went rather well in the other place, so why not have it here? The UK Youth Parliament has sat in the Lords, in Berlin, in Dublin and in the European Parliament, and is about to sit in Sweden. It does not frighten the horses in other chambers around the world where it has similar meetings. Its members did not trash the House of Lords; they were not found swinging from the chandeliers or the Throne, or abseiling from the Public Gallery. They behaved rather well and had a very worthwhile meeting. Let us not be afraid of allowing young people into these hallowed Chambers. Parliament is not just a room or a building, fantastic though it may be—it is an assemblage of political people coming together to discuss and debate. When one takes away the Mace, the Speaker and the hon. Members, one is left with furniture.

Philip Davies: rose—

Edward Leigh: rose—

Tim Loughton: I thought that that might get some response.
	Parliament has met in many different chambers, and that did not detract from its power and sovereignty or from what it discussed.

Edward Leigh: If this place is a collection of furniture, why does the Youth Parliament want to sit here?

Tim Loughton: It sends a clear message about the importance that we vest in the voices of young people who are interested and have taken the trouble to be elected by their peers and who have something useful to say. We may not agree with it, but they have the right to say it and we should want to hear it.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I was recently with a Youth Parliament member who acts for the Wellingborough constituency, and he did not mention that it wanted to have its annual meeting here. Is there a huge demand for this, or was it a whim of the Prime Minister's to get some publicity?

Tim Loughton: Whether it is a whim of the Prime Minister I do not know. What I do know is that the UK Youth Parliament has proposed that it should meet in this Chamber, having had a similar, and successful, outing in another place. Would we not look odd and regressive compared with the House of Lords if we denied them the opportunity in this elected Chamber that they have had in that unelected Chamber elsewhere in this place?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend says, as others have, that these are just green Benches—that without the Speaker or the Mace it is just furniture. When he shows his constituents around this Chamber without the Speaker or the Mace in place, do they say, "Oh, it's just a lot of green Benches, isn't it? Just a bit of furniture"? Is it just my constituents who think that this is a fine institution, the traditions of which should be protected, or do his constituents think that too?

Tim Loughton: I think that my hon. Friend knows the answer to that question.
	Parliament is not about the building, fixtures and fittings—it is about what we as elected Members choose to do in the name of our constituents in representing them in this place. That is the point. We should not get hung up on a building.

Brian Binley: My concern does not rest necessarily with the Youth Parliament but with all the other people who may wish to come here thereafter. We have not heard from Government Front Benchers about what restrictions might be imposed on using this place. Does he agree that some such restriction is needed?

Tim Loughton: Of course there needs to be restriction. We are not opening up this Chamber for just anybody to come here—we are specifically debating one motion, the terms of which are to praise the functions of the UK Youth Parliament and to allow it one sitting here. As I said, the details need to be sorted out. As to whether it becomes a regular meeting in future, the House would have to debate that again. This does not give the UK Youth Parliament a blank cheque to turn up here whenever it likes. Clearly, in using this Chamber it must not inconvenience the normal workings of Parliament—of our going about our normal business of passing legislation here. It must not assume that the various symbols of this Parliament should be employed; that is why it is useful that the Minister has clarified that there will not be a mock Mace and so on.
	In the debate the other day, some Members said, "Aren't we opening the floodgates—might not we have the Muslim Council of Britain, the National Pensioners Convention, or whatever, here?" My response was that any of the people in those organisations are entitled to stand in a general election for the privilege of representing constituents and placing their elected posteriors on these green Benches. The 11 to 17-year-olds in the UK Youth Parliament do not have that right at this stage. If we wanted to consider whether an assembly of Scouts should be able to sit here, we would need to have that debate. My own view is that that would not be appropriate. We are talking about a UK Youth Parliament elected along the same lines as those on which we are elected. It is open to all their peers to elect them in a democratic election. That is what is different, and that is why they, exceptionally, should be granted this privilege, initially as a pilot to see whether holding their sitting here would add to their cause of engaging more young people in the political process.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman refers to people being allowed to sit and debate in this Chamber if they are not eligible to stand at a general election. Does he think that if a group of prisoners were to put themselves forward as wanting to discuss matters of penal reform, they could gather in this Chamber and we would be encouraging a constructive debate on penal reform? After all, they would not be allowed to participate in an election, so would it be a constructive exercise?

Tim Loughton: No.

Christopher Chope: If my hon. Friend is not in favour of prisoners debating here, how about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? People from other Commonwealth countries who cannot stand for election to this Parliament because they are not British citizens could come here to see the items of furniture and fittings that their own Parliaments contributed to this Parliament after the war in a sense of solidarity with democracy. Why not have the CPA or Commonwealth Speakers coming to have their meetings in this Parliament? It is not as simple as he seems to think.

Tim Loughton: The answer, again, is no. To anticipate any similar interventions, I would also be against lunatics or people subject to a section being able to sit in this place on the same basis.
	The other day, I mentioned a comment made by a UK Youth Parliament member after the sitting in the Lords. I will quote it again, because it sums up what this is all about. Robert felt that the publicity generated from the House of Lords debates would be a great start. He said:
	"This is fantastic press which we've never had before and it's so positive. This is the kind of thing the media really need to focus on."
	It is the kind of thing that they clearly have not been getting from holding an assembly, meeting or convention of whatever form in Committee Room 14 upstairs. We must face the fact that there is a serious problem with the image and portrayal of young people, given that 71 per cent. of all stories about them in the media are negative, mostly to do with antisocial behaviour and crime. If we can do something to help to reverse that terrible trend towards the demonisation of young people, in which the Government have been culpable in many of the things they have done in recent years, that will be progress.
	What are we scared of? Why do we apparently assume that Youth Parliament members will misbehave? Do we seriously think that they will leave gum under the seats and swing from the chandeliers, or that we will have to install jukeboxes and that there will be a major chav riot? Of course that is not going to happen. We are not going to have to install BMX bike ramps here, or revolving glitter balls on the ceiling. We can go about our normal business without having to move the furniture around, and it will be for one day only. It really is no big deal. The disengagement of young people in this country is a major problem. Allowing the Youth Parliament one sitting is not a panacea, but it would send a helpful and hopeful message.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for arriving slightly late in his contribution.
	My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument about recognising the progress that the UK Youth Parliament has made. I was at the memorial service on Friday for Andrew Rowe, the former Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, who played something of a leading role in its formation. A young woman stood up to talk about how she had been involved in a gang on the streets of Maidstone and had taken part in shoplifting and various other forms of what we would regard as antisocial behaviour. She spoke about how she had been encouraged to participate in a local youth forum, with the prospect of its leading to her participating in the Youth Parliament, and the transformative effect that it had on her. The last meeting happened in the other place, but we must recognise that the aspiration of all the people involved in the UK Youth Parliament is that the project will develop and gain momentum. Giving it the opportunity to hold a meeting here is an entirely legitimate aspiration, and I support it.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sorry that I was unable to make the memorial service of a late friend, but I heard about precisely that contribution. The UK Youth Parliament's achievements over the past 10 years have been important, although it is not perfect and it needs to achieve many more things, gain much more publicity and engage with more young people.
	Similarly, there are youth mayors. I shall be hosting an event—before Members say that it will be in this Chamber, I add that it will be in Portcullis House on 29 April—to which we are inviting every elected youth mayor from around the country. It is to promote the idea of youth mayors, which is another good way of giving young people a voice and showing them that they can engage with people in authority to shape the way in which their world, their nation and their local community work.
	By allowing the use of this Chamber, as a one-off opportunity on a non-sitting day—it will not deprive any Member of the opportunity to park their posterior on these privileged green Benches—we will say to the UK Youth Parliament and to young people in the country at large that their voice is important, too. We will be saying that their views count, and that it is worth our taking a risk and sticking our neck out to invite them to hold their deliberations here. We might find that their contributions are shorter, but just as good or occasionally better, than some that we hear from elected Members. It would be a special occasion and a pilot.
	Too often, young people say that politics, Parliament and the ivory tower that is the House of Commons are not for them. They believe that they are populated by people in dark suits who do not understand or engage, and they say, "They are not for us." What better way to send a message that they are wrong, that we do value their voice and views and that we want to hear from them than by allowing them to have their deliberations in that citadel of privilege, that ivory tower? It is a risk worth taking, subject to the many details that needed to be ironed out.
	The debate that we appear to be having about procedural detail will give rise to accusations that we can, at times, be out of touch with people in the community in general, and particularly with young people. We continue to go down that trail at our peril if we want to improve the engagement of young people in politics and improve on the appalling statistic from the last general election that the percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds who bothered to turn out and vote was 39 per cent., or barely one in three. That is the biggest challenge that faces us all. For goodness' sake, let us take a step in the right direction and say, "Come here. We want to hear what you say, so let's give it a go."

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), even though I do not agree with many of the points he made. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who made an excellent speech and highlighted the many problems that could arise from the motion.
	This is not a debate about the merits of the Youth Parliament and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. I am proud of the fact that I spend as much time as I can trying to engage with members of the Youth Parliament in my constituency. When they are elected, I always contact them straight away to congratulate them and make it clear that I am happy to meet them and discuss any issue. I recently attended a debate of the Youth Parliament in the chamber of Bradford council, and what a fine debate it was. Some excellent speeches were made, and the debate was of an extremely high calibre. The idea that anybody who is opposed to the Youth Parliament sitting in this Chamber must therefore be opposed to the Youth Parliament is completely wrong, and it is not particularly generous of people to say that. I have a great deal of admiration for young people who make every effort to stand in an election and want to make a difference in their local community. I am full of admiration for them, but that makes no difference to the debate.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has emerged as the youth wing of the Conservative neanderthals who are opposing the motion. What does he believe that young people think about this debate? Does he believe that it shows us in the best possible light when we are trying to engage young people in voting for us to come this House?

Philip Davies: The great thing about this is that we are having a debate. One of the most shameful episodes in this case has been the fact that, day in and day out, the Government have tried to sneak the motion on to the Order Paper and get it through without any debate whatever taking place. What message does the hon. Gentleman believe that sends to the Youth Parliament? It shows this House in a better light when we debate and air things. That is surely the best example that we can send the Youth Parliament, rather than trying to sneak things through at the end of a quiet night and hope that nobody notices what is going on.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Is not the problem with the Government's attempts to sneak the motion through the fact that this Executive are used to getting things through without proper debate? We need only look at the Northern Ireland Bill, which they forced through in one day. The advantage of this business is that we have some say in it.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are trying to set a good example to the Youth Parliament, which of course we should, because we want to inspire younger people to get involved in politics, perhaps we ought to examine some of the processes of this House and how the Government curtail debate and all too often prevent it from taking place. I will certainly not take any lectures from the Deputy Leader of the House about the importance of encouraging younger people to take part in the parliamentary process, given that it is this Government who have done most to undermine that process.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible that, rather than us setting a good example to the Youth Parliament, the Youth Parliament may well set this House a good example if it is given the opportunity?

Philip Davies: It may well set this House a good example in many respects, but that does not mean that it should sit in this Chamber. I shall come in a few moments to some of the reasons why I do not believe that it should do so.
	I always tell young people that when a politician is given a problem to solve, their solution will incorporate two ingredients. The first is that they have to be seen to be doing something—it is the bane of politicians' lives. I long for the day when a Minister says, "Actually, that's got nothing to do with us." That will never happen, because they never underestimate their power. The second ingredient is that the proposals must not offend anybody. A politician who can find a solution that incorporates the two ingredients of being seen to do something and not offending anybody will dash for it with alacrity. That appears to be the current position: the Prime Minister has got himself into a muddle by making a promise that he found harder to fulfil than perhaps he thought. Wanting to seem trendy and cool to young people, his solution to the problem of his unpopularity with everybody, including young people, is to look as if he is doing something that will not offend anybody: letting the Youth Parliament sit in the House of Commons Chamber. That is typical politician-talk and the sort of thing that brings the House into disrepute.

Anne Moffat: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the Prime Minister's position. What does the Leader of the Opposition think about the matter?

Philip Davies: The Leader of the Opposition is more than capable of speaking for himself. He does not need me to speak for him; I am not sure that he would ever ask me to speak for him. I can tell the hon. Lady what I think, which is probably the safest position for me to adopt. When she meets my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in the corridor, she can ask for his views—I am sure that he would be more than happy to tell her. Perhaps my right hon. Friend does not agree with me, but that would not be the first time and I suspect that it will not be the last. The hon. Lady's point does not, therefore, make a great deal of difference.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend know whether the Prime Minister has invited the UK Youth Parliament to sit around the Cabinet table?

Philip Davies: I do not know, but I am sure that it is only a matter of time.
	The onus is on the Government and hon. Members who believe that the Youth Parliament should sit here to make their case. The case for change needs to be made; the case for no change does not. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is in his place, because I remember his fine speech in the debate on House of Lords reform. He said that, for a Conservative, if it was not necessary to change, it was necessary not to change. That has stuck with me and is an especially good point. It is one thing that makes us Conservatives.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) made a point about somebody who had been transformed by sitting in the UK Youth Parliament. I am sure that it is an inspiring story and that we want to encourage such transformation, but it happened without the person sitting in the House of Commons Chamber. That person's life was transformed without a Youth Parliament debate taking place in the House. People do not need to sit in here for their lives to be transformed through the UK Youth Parliament.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to some colleagues who have already spoken. He claims that the case for change has not made, but several hon. Members have presented such a case. However, they have not adequately differentiated the one organisation and the one instance from any others. Would those who say that the Chamber is just another room and that the Benches are just furniture make it available to any worthwhile organisation?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right—I should have said that no persuasive case had been made for change. He is also right about the precedent that could be set, and I hope to deal with that shortly.
	The best case that those in favour make appears to be that we should allow the UK Youth Parliament in here because its members will not trash the place or leave bubble gum under the seats. Nobody has suggested that they would do that. That is not a persuasive case. Let us hope that they do not trash the place; I am sure that they will not, but surely the case should be slightly stronger.
	I accept the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about being patronising. We have heard much about the low turnout among young people at general elections. Those in favour of the Youth Parliament's sitting in the House of Commons Chamber appear to suggest that, if we let it do so, all of a sudden, that turnout will go through the roof and be sky high. That is simplistic nonsense. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us the measure of his success? If the Youth Parliament is allowed to sit in the Chamber for this year only, will he estimate the turnout among young people at the next general election, so that we can judge whether the event has been a great triumph in inspiring younger people to vote?
	Younger people do not vote at general elections because we do not inspire them to do that. The onus is on us. Pretending that we can carry on as we have always done and trot out the same meaningless stuff that will not offend anybody, or go around saying nothing and hoping that nobody notices, while claiming that allowing the Youth Parliament to sit in this Chamber for one day means that, all of a sudden, the turnout at general elections will go through the roof, is ludicrous. Surely nobody believes that allowing the Youth Parliament to sit here for one day will make a massive difference to turnout at a UK general election.
	Young people do not want to vote because they never hear arguments about ideas and politics. I was brought up in the 1980s, when there was a clear difference between the political parties and we could have a battle of ideas. Young people are inspired by that, not the meaningless drivel that people trot out because they are so scared of offending anybody. If we want to inspire young people, let us have a battle of ideas and try to inspire them to get involved in Parliament.
	The question that has not been tackled—I do not understand how it can—is: why only the Youth Parliament? Why only for one year? Surely if it is a good thing for the Youth Parliament to sit here, it is good for it to sit here every year.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making his usual powerful case. Does he agree that one problem with allowing the Youth Parliament to sit here is that, under European Union law, we would discriminate against other organisations if we did not allow them to sit here?

Philip Davies: I know that my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for the European Union. He may well be right. In my brief time in politics, I have learned never to be surprised by anything. It would not therefore surprise me if the European Union, which does barmy things day in, day out, interfered in the Chamber. It already decides 80 per cent. of our laws, so it may well want to decide who can sit in the Chamber.
	What is so special about the UK Youth Parliament? I am the first to acknowledge that it does good work, that I greatly admire those who stand for election to it and that we want to inspire them to get involved in politics in the long run, but there are other bodies that also get involved in local politics and the political process, which I greatly admire. I recently attended a meeting in Shipley of people who hoped to establish a learning disability parliament. I wish them every success. I hope that it brings greater focus on the issues that affect those people. If such a parliament is established, should its members be able to use the Chamber? If not, why not? Why would that be a worse organisation than the UK Youth Parliament? What is the difference? Why would we want to discriminate against a learning disability parliament?
	The National Pensioners Convention has been mentioned. It does a great job in highlighting issues that affect pensioners. Many pensioners in my constituency would argue that we do not pay enough attention to the problems that they face. In particular, many on a fixed income are trying to manage when savings are decreasing and they are struggling to get by. Would we allow the National Pensioners Convention to meet here? If not, why not? Why does it constitute a worse case than the UK Youth Parliament?
	We were told earlier that there is a big problem with turnout among young people at elections, that the role of the Youth Parliament is underestimated and that the proposal would give it useful publicity. I can tell hon. Members that there is very little recognition of what my local parish council does. It does a great job. There are people on the council who volunteer their time, putting many hours for the benefit of the local community. The council could certainly do with some useful publicity to raise its profile. Why can my parish council not have its annual meeting in the House of Commons Chamber, if that would give it some useful publicity and highlight the good work that it does? There is a never-ending list of useful organisations that do marvellous things in the local community.

Edward Leigh: To be fair to the proponents of the proposal, they argue that the Youth Parliament is quite different because those involved cannot vote in a normal election. However, nobody remains 17 for ever. Why should that group, whose disability will vanish, be allowed to sit here, whereas those other people will never be allowed to sit here? I do not see the logic of that.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is entirely right.
	We want to encourage members of the Youth Parliament to come to sit in this House. I was immensely honoured when I was elected to this House. I had a feeling of immense pride. I cannot even explain to people how much pride I felt at being elected to represent my constituents in Parliament. It is the finest thing that could happen to anybody. Surely we should encourage younger people to aspire to that. We do not want them to think, "Well, I've already sat and had a debate in there. I'm not really bothered about standing for Parliament any more—I've already done that."
	Those hon. Members who think that that might not happen have already conceded that it could by saying that the reason the Youth Parliament cannot sit in Committee Room 14 or the House of Lords is that it has already done so. If the Youth Parliament is allowed to have its day in the House of Commons Chamber, why would it not think, "We've already done that and we don't want to do it again—we're not interested anymore"? If that is the argument for why neither Committee Room 14 nor the House of Lords can used, surely we will put people off standing for Parliament.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for his kind remarks earlier. He is making a formidable case and I entirely support him. However, surely the fundamental issue is that this Chamber is not a toy. The idea behind the move is a cheap gimmick to try to court the vote of the youth. As he has made clear, however, it is likely to have no such effect whatever. Furthermore, is there not an ancient tradition in this place that when visitors come here, the Doorkeepers and others are religious in insisting that no visitor shall sit on one of these Benches unless he has fought a parliamentary election and won? That is the qualification of being in this Chamber and sitting on these Benches; there is no other.

Philip Davies: As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. I absolutely agree with him. He is a great defender of Parliament as an institution. I just wish that all other hon. Members were such stalwart defenders of this institution.

Christopher Chope: Following the excellent point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), has my hon. Friend considered the implications of the arguments that might be deployed by, for example, Sinn Fein MPs who have not accepted the Oath and who currently cannot sit on these green Benches? If we accepted the motion this evening, we would be allowing people from the UK Youth Parliament to exercise a privilege that we do not give to those who have been elected under the Sinn Fein banner.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point is that the motion sets such a precedent that nobody knows where on earth it would end up. The idea that says, "Well, it's a very specific motion—it's only for one year, it's just for the UK Youth Parliament and that's that," is incredibly naive. Whenever anybody wants to use the Chamber, this motion will be used as a precedent to say, "The UK Youth Parliament was allowed in here, so why not us?" The case will be irresistible and everyone will have to acknowledge the logic of the argument. Either people are allowed to use this Chamber or they are not. We cannot say that some people are allowed and some people are not.

Peter Bone: On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made about Members of this House not being allowed to sit in this Chamber unless they have taken the Loyal Oath to Her Majesty, does my hon. Friend envisage members of the Youth Parliament having to take the Loyal Oath before attending?

Philip Davies: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question, but it shows that the Deputy Leader of the House has an awful lot of ground to cover in answering the many legitimate questions being posed. Indeed, there seem to be more questions as time goes on.

Pete Wishart: Because of the repairs required for the House, it is quite likely that we will have to decant in the next few years, possibly to the Queen Elizabeth building across the road. Would the hon. Gentleman be as vigorously opposed to the Youth Parliament sitting there as he is to the motion this evening? Is the issue about Parliament or about this Chamber?

Philip Davies: The issue is the Chamber. The Youth Parliament should not be allowed to use the Chamber in which the debates take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has made it clear that that argument is not about preventing the Youth Parliament from having its annual meeting in Parliament. I am certainly very happy for the Youth Parliament to have its annual meeting in Parliament. I am happy to play my part by having a discussion with the Youth Parliament about politics, and by even showing people round and trying to inspire them to get involved in politics. However, that can quite easily be done by using Committee Room 14, Westminster Hall, or anywhere else for that matter. The point is about using the Chamber.

Christopher Chope: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I gave the Deputy Leader of the House the impression earlier that there would be a free vote among Back and Front-Bench Conservative Members, I was not giving the whole picture? Does my hon. Friend understand that Conservative Front Benchers are not being given a free vote in tonight's proceedings?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that clarification. As he well knows, I cannot speak for the Conservative Front Bench as a whole, let alone the leader of the party. Again, we must leave it to others to explain the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. All I can do is humbly set out my view. As I do not sit on the Front Bench—nor will I ever—it is probably best if I stick to what I think, rather than predicting what the Front-Bench position is. However, I am sure that everybody will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
	Apart from the fact that the Youth Parliament will not trash the place, the whole point of the argument is that the move will inspire young people to get involved in the political process. That appears to be the main thrust of the argument. To elaborate on a point that I made in an earlier intervention, surely the fact that those involved are already part of the UK Youth Parliament means that they have already been inspired to get involved in politics and want to help in their local communities. Having the UK Youth Parliament sit here will therefore make absolutely no difference to inspiring those young people to get involved in politics. They are already involved.

Kerry McCarthy: That point was made earlier—I think by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although it might have been made by the hon. Gentleman in an intervention—but are Opposition Members not aware that the UK Youth Parliament is a movement that involves a far greater number of people than those who are elected to it? People in schools across the country take part in the elections. There are Facebook groups and there are people on Twitter—indeed, I have been sending them messages about what has been happening in the debate over the past week and about how certain Opposition Members are opposing the motion. We are not talking about just the people who would be in the Chamber; a much wider audience of young people would be watching and are aware of what is going on.

Philip Davies: I am sure that there are many people who read the hon. Lady's Twitter, and I am sure that she would also encourage them to read the debate in  Hansard.

Kerry McCarthy: I will.

Philip Davies: I very much hope that the hon. Lady will indeed do that. However, if we are trying to inspire younger people who are not currently involved in the political process to get involved and if we want to use the House of Commons Chamber to do that, surely the people to allow the use of this Chamber are not the members of the UK Youth Parliament. They are already involved. Surely if we want to inspire those who are not already involved in politics to get involved in the political process, we should opening up the Chamber to them and letting them in. Perhaps we could do a trawl of all our marked registers after an election, find all the people who did not vote in the election and invite them to spend a day debating in the Chamber in order to inspire them to get involved in the political process.

Michael Connarty: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) would tell the hon. Gentleman, most young people know the difference between twitter and twaddle. When they look at some of the contributions to this debate, they will well understand that it is mainly twaddle that we are listening to now. When people are trying to get engaged in politics—whether it be a woman, a person from a poor background who wants to break through the barrier or someone from a minority ethnic community—is it not important for us to show them some recognition, respect and encouragement? Is it not possible to let people come in here and use our Chamber to show that we respect and recognise them and encourage them in their endeavours? That brings many in behind them, but to treat them with disdain—and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has been treating them with disdain in his contribution—is, in fact, to insult them.

Philip Davies: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that the only way he can encourage younger people to get involved in politics and the only way to involve people from ethnic minorities is to allow them to use the Chamber. That shows a distinct lack of imagination on his part if he cannot come up with anything better than that. I am afraid that he also showed the typical new Labour trait, which is to be totally intolerant of anybody who happens to have a different opinion. I am perfectly happy to respect the fact that he has a different opinion from me on this particular matter, just as I am happy to respect the fact that he probably has a different opinion from me on virtually every political matter. That is the whole point of democracy. What kind of an example does he think it sets young people when he shows such intolerance to anyone who happens to hold a different opinion? Surely he should respect other people's opinions, even if they happen to differ from his own. He is not setting a very good example to people in the UK Youth Parliament by throwing abuse at the other side of the Chamber just because somebody happens to disagree with his view. I am afraid that that is so typical of the intolerance and authoritarianism of this new Labour Government.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman has shown in his earlier interventions and in his speech that he respects the members of the UK Youth Parliament and admires and greatly values what they are doing. He has rightly explained his views on that, but does he not accept that this is not about inspiring members of the Youth Parliament alone? It is about the main debating Chamber and the main Assembly of this country setting an example to the whole of society that the youth out there are our future. We should trust them and respect them. We should show people that we are prepared to give them these green Benches so they can have their say—and we should listen carefully to them.

Philip Davies: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not understand why we cannot respect the views of young people and encourage them to get involved in the political process without allowing them to sit in the Chamber. I do not see why we are going to revolutionise the engagement of young people in politics simply by allowing one group of people in the UK Youth Parliament to use this Chamber for one day only. If he thinks that is going to make all the difference in the world, I think that he is misguided.

Jeremy Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that if the Government had allocated the amount of time that we are spending this evening in discussing this issue to debating issues such as our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, global terrorism, climate change and youth unemployment, more young people would have been engaged than by our talking about this narrow issue.?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's comments go wide of the motion and amendment that are currently before the House.

Philip Davies: In that case, I will resist the temptation to comment on the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
	Another point raised in the debate was the fact that the UK Youth Parliament—as opposed to all the other groups that do such marvellous work in the community—was a special case because its members are not allowed to stand for election. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Aldershot picked up on that point. I thought that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) made the point very well that there are many people who cannot stand for Parliament for particular reasons—prisoners and people with mental health problems, for example.  [Interruption.] Yes, peers of the realm are another example, and I could mention the royal family. Are we going to allow all those groups who cannot stand for election to have their day in this Chamber? That seems to be the argument that was pursued—that the Youth Parliament was a special case, because its members could not stand for election. Prisoners cannot stand for election, so why not give them the opportunity to have a day of debate in this Chamber? That goes to show that another one of the arguments being used is completely spurious and does not stand up to any serious inspection.
	I do not accept the widely touted view that this place is basically just a row of green furniture that means nothing to anyone without the Mace or the Speaker in place. On the many occasions I have shown people around the Chamber and into the Lobbies, I have found them to be absolutely in awe of this place. They think it is the most marvellous place to come and visit; they queue up to visit. The number of people who visit this place is enormous. They do not see it as just a row of green Benches when they come into the Chamber. They really feel they are entering somewhere special. They do not want to see it devalued in any way; they do not want other people to be able to sit here.
	When we think about the common thread and why all the people who come to Parliament want to visit it, what they want to visit and see is our traditions. They certainly do not come in to listen to the debates that go on in this place. They come here to visit because they love to see the traditions, which mean something to them. They do not want to see our traditions in this place continually taken away from them and continually eroded. If we carry on eroding all our traditions in this place, this place will mean nothing. It will mean nothing to the people who come here. People will treat it with increasing contempt. They treat it with contempt at the moment, which is mainly based on the things people say in this place and the lack of respect they have. If we keep eroding the traditions of this House, we will further erode people's confidence and we will increase the contempt they have for this place. We must guard against that at every possible opportunity.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is speaking in terms not dissimilar from those that our hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) might employ. That reminds me that he particularly asked me to point out that he is unable to participate in this debate because he is working on Select Committee business on Northern Ireland.

Philip Davies: I am grateful for that intervention. As my hon. Friend knows, our hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire is a great defender of Parliament as an institution—and Parliament as an institution is worth defending. It is under assault like at no time ever before, so we should not help in the process of treating Parliament with contempt. Rather, we should stand firm and hold up the traditions that people think are very important. When visitors enter Parliament on their visits, they are not allowed to sit on the green Benches. People may argue whether that is right or wrong, but it seems to me that most people I speak to, even those who are in favour of this motion, believe that that should stand and that people should not be able to sit on the green Benches when they come to visit.
	How can we stop visitors sitting on the green Benches once we have opened them up to the Youth Parliament? Why are members of the Youth Parliament so special compared with everyone else in the country? Why cannot other people have their moment of sitting on the green Benches if that is what they want to do? It is perfectly clear that we are setting a precedent, which will mean that all sorts of groups and individuals will be allowed to sit on these green Benches. People may agree or disagree with that, but let us at least be open about the implications.

Sharon Hodgson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this Parliament is seen across the world, and especially in the Commonwealth, as the mother of all Parliaments? If he does, he would recognise that this, the mother of all Parliaments, should be used as an example. We should follow the example of some of our friends in Commonwealth countries, who are already beginning to let their Parliaments be used by their youth representatives and youth Parliaments. If they can do it, why cannot we, if they are following our example?

Philip Davies: I do not entirely follow the hon. Lady's argument. If we are the mother of all Parliaments—a proposition with which I agree—surely the onus is on other Parliaments to copy what we are doing, rather than its being on the mother of all Parliaments to copy what everyone else is doing. I accept the hon. Lady's premise, but not the logic of her subsequent argument.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. Is not one of the problems the way in which the Government have timetabled the motion today, and the way in which it appears on the Order Paper? Members will not necessarily know that this debate is in progress, because they may not know that the earlier business collapsed. Would it not have been better had the Government given plenty of notice and tabled a proper motion, so that Members could have been present to debate this important issue?

Philip Davies: I agree, and I feel that this has set an appalling example to the UK Youth Parliament. The Government have tried, day in day out, to sneak the motion through at the end of the day's business, hoping that no one would notice it on the Order Paper and it would not be laid open to scrutiny. What example does that give to the UK Youth Parliament? It is hardly a fine example, if those young people are led to believe that the Government try to sneak things through without a proper debate.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the public's holding this place, and politicians, in contempt. Does he not feel that his arguments make us appear arrogant, defensive, elitist, restrictive and just a little too precious—a little too full of ourselves, looking for special privileges and special treatment? Does he not accept that that is what breeds the contempt, and that a little understanding, trust, decency and belief in young people might help to destroy the contempt and build trust in the people?

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman may well have a point. He may well be right. I respect that view if it is the view that he has taken, and it may well be the view that other people have taken. However, I do not personally believe that opening the Chamber to the UK Youth Parliament will transform the public's view of politicians. I do not believe that not allowing the UK Youth Parliament, or anyone else for that matter, to use these Benches is what has undermined confidence in Members of Parliament. I think that it is we, as Members of Parliament generally, who have undermined confidence in ourselves. We must also bear in mind that other people were not allowed to use these Benches in the 1980s and 1990s, when turnouts in elections were far higher. Given that that did not stop people from turning out in huge numbers in the past, I do not see why it should make any difference now.

Chris Bryant: I entirely respect the hon. Gentleman's views. He expressed concern earlier about whether Labour Members who disagreed with him respected his views, and of course we do, but he is relying on an argument relating to tradition in the House. I wonder whether he could tell us when he believes that the tradition of only Members being allowed to sit in this Chamber began. It certainly did not obtain in the Chamber that was used previously, so it may have existed only since the second world war.

Philip Davies: That is a good enough tradition as far as I am concerned. The point that I am making, however, is that the argument that allowing the members of the UK Youth Parliament to sit in the Chamber will transform their view of Members of Parliament, the public's view of Members of Parliament and the view of Parliament held by young people generally is nonsense. Anyone who thinks that allowing the UK Youth Parliament to sit in the Chamber will transform the way in which we are perceived is either naive or disingenuous, because in fact it will make no difference whatsoever.
	I challenge all who are in favour of this proposal to define the measure of its success. Let us hear whether a huge increase in political activity on the part of young people will result from this gesture—for a gesture is what it is. Let us hear whether it will bring about a transformation in the extent of political involvement among young people and in turnout at elections. Given that the Government are so fond of targets, let us know the target for this initiative. Let us know the likely turnout. Then we will be able to judge whether it has been a success. I can virtually guarantee that it will not make a blind bit of difference to the turnout at the next election, but let us put the argument on the table so that we can make a judgment.

Sharon Hodgson: If we do not allow young people to sit here and take part in a debate for a single day, what does that say about us? It is not a question of what it says about us if we do allow it; I am more concerned about what it says about us if we do not. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman mentioned contempt. I think that he has shown contempt for the UK Youth Parliament by suggesting that its members are no better than criminals or people in lunatic asylums.

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady's argument suggests that she is becoming confused. As she knows, no one has compared the UK Youth Parliament to criminals and lunatics. If that is the level of debate at which we have arrived, perhaps we ought to replace the people in this place with the members of the UK Youth Parliament. I have no doubt about one thing: if the UK Youth Parliament does sit here, the calibre of its debate will be far higher.
	For the benefit of the hon. Lady, who may not have been present when the argument was being advanced, it was suggested that the reason the UK Youth Parliament was a one-off exception was that, given that its members were aged between 11 and 17, they did not have an opportunity to stand for Parliament, and should therefore be granted the special privilege of sitting in this Chamber. My point, and the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton, was that although there are other categories of people who cannot stand for election, no one has suggested that they should be able to hold a debate here.
	I have met local members of the UK Youth Parliament on a number of occasions. As I said earlier, I attended a debate in the Bradford council chamber, and a fine debate it was. No one badgered me about this. No one said "The one thing that we really want to do is sit in the House of Commons Chamber." That idea was not floated. It appears to be an idea that the Prime Minister came up with, and now we are trying to dig the Prime Minister out of a hole that he got himself into totally unnecessarily. If the idea had never been raised, no member of the UK Youth Parliament would ever have mentioned it.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has said several times how much he respects the calibre of the Youth Parliament and the quality of its debate. He has also applauded the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Christchurch was very disparaging about the Youth Parliament, very disparaging about west country traditions, and very disparaging about the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). Only one of those statements is valid. Can he guess which one?

Philip Davies: I agree with the thrust of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and I commend his speech. I often commend the speeches of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but that does not mean that I agree with everything that he says. In fact, I seldom agree with what he says, but I always commend the quality of his speeches, even if the content sometimes leaves a great deal to be desired.
	This is a very important matter. Some people seem to consider it a trifling matter involving a row of green benches which are just furniture, but I do not take that view. I was immensely proud to be elected to this House. The proudest moment of my life, which will always remain the proudest moment of my life, was when I was enabled to represent my constituents, have the privilege of sitting in this Chamber and have a platform on which to air my views—even if occasionally Labour Members, and even some on my own side, do not always agree with them. That is an enormous privilege to which I would want every young person in this country to aspire, and I will make it my business to try to inspire every young person in my constituency to get involved in the political process.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend said earlier that there is a danger that if we allowed members of the UK Youth Parliament to sit in this Chamber the novelty might wear off and they would want to sit somewhere even bigger in future. Has the novelty worn off for my hon. Friend? Has his enthusiasm for this Chamber in any way been diminished by the fact that he has now become a Member of Parliament, and if not, why does he think that the ardour of these young people would be diminished if they were to have the opportunity to sit here once?

Philip Davies: Perhaps it is so special to me and my enthusiasm has not diminished because I had to wait so long to become a Member. This argument has already been advanced, and not by me; it has been said that neither Committee Room 14 nor the House of Lords would be good enough because the UK Youth Parliament had already sat in them. The logic of that argument is that if they were to sit in the House of Commons Chamber, they would not want to do so again.
	There are far better ways to inspire young people to get involved in politics. I speak in debates and argue about political ideas at my local schools. I take every opportunity to visit schools and have debates with students and encourage them to enter the battle of political ideas. I encourage all of them to get involved at the local level in whichever political party suits best their viewpoint, and to try to do something and to make a difference. I am therefore not going to take any lectures from other people about trying to encourage younger people to get involved in the political process. I am as passionate about that as anybody. This is the most simplistic idea to try to get people involved in the political process, however. If the length and breadth of our imagination about how to get younger people involved in the political process is to allow them to sit in this Chamber, we have an awful long way to go before we really engage with young people and inspire them to get involved in politics.
	The following questions remain: why just the UK Youth Parliament, and why just this year? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made this point particularly well. What is so special about this year's cohort of the UK Youth Parliament? I am sure that they are all fine, upstanding people whom we should be encouraging, but why are they more fine and upstanding than next year's cohort, or the following year's cohort? Why will this inspire this year's members to get involved in politics, but not next year's members?

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal might just have been made because this year might be an election year, and that Members on the Government Benches might think there is electoral advantage in it?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend may well be right. Given the cynical view that members of the public have of politicians generally across the political divide, I would not be surprised if many members of the UK Youth Parliament thought that that might be a motivation. I would like to think that it was not, but I would never like to rule out any such motivation, as it may well be the case.
	This step will not make any difference to the number of younger people turning out in elections and getting involved in the political process. This is a gesture—it is gesture politics of the worst kind. It is patronising young people to think that if we do this, we can make ourselves look trendy and cool, and we can show we are in touch with the youth in our area because we voted for the UK Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons Chamber. If this Parliament really has reached such a level that that is the only argument we can advance, it is very sad indeed. I would have hoped for better than that from this House, but it appears that these are the depths to which we have sunk.
	The Deputy Leader of the House must answer this question: why just this year's UK Youth Parliament? What is so special about this year? Why do we not want to encourage future years of the Youth Parliament through their using this Chamber, too? Why, also, did we not want to use it in previous years? The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) about the motivation might well be right, or he may well be wrong, but the question must be answered at least.
	I fear that this motion is nothing to do with one year only. It might say that it is for this year only and for the UK Youth Parliament only, but how many Members really think that is going to be the end of the matter? This sets a precedent. When other organisations and bodies argue that they should have the right to sit in this Chamber because the UK Youth Parliament did so, who will stand up to their constituents and say, "Oh no, you can't, because the UK Youth Parliament is more special than you are. It is far more deserving than you are"? Which of us is going to stand up and say that to their constituents when they ask to use the House of Commons Chamber? Who will say that to their women's institute, Mothers Union or parish council? Nobody is going to say it. The logic of the argument is unanswerable— [ Interruption. ] I can give way to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham so that he can explain how he will tell those people that. No, he has not yet decided what words he would use.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way so many times. Why would the Women's institute, which single-handedly took on the previous Prime Minister, not have the right to sit here if we let the Youth Parliament do so?

Philip Davies: As always, my hon. Friend makes a good point. The case for allowing other organisations—and the UK Youth Parliament in subsequent years—to use this Chamber would be unanswerable if we allowed this motion to go through tonight. We could never claim again that only Members of Parliament can sit on these Benches and that only Members of Parliament can use this Chamber for debate. That argument would be gone at a stroke. We would never be able to recover it.
	Some people think that we should open up the Chamber to other organisations in the future and to the UK Youth Parliament in subsequent years—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome seems to be one of them. That is fine. I respect that position. It is a perfectly honourable position, but let us have it out in the open. Let everyone put their cards on the table and let us all know what we are entering into. We are setting a precedent that will be repeated year in, year out for all kinds of organisations. At least some Members of this House will have the courage and honesty to say for what they are voting.
	What I do not like is the way in which this motion has been dealt with. To start with, it was tabled for consideration at the end of every day, as attempts were made to sneak it through without debate. Now a debate has been forced, we have a pretence that the event will be a one-off. Anybody who believes that is living in cloud cuckoo land. This will happen year after year.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend express his view on why he thinks that the motion is whipped business for some Front Benchers?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend keeps tempting me down the line of speculating about why those on our Front Bench have taken the stance that they have. I am sure that my party has good reason for taking the stance that it has—it tends always to have good reason for its decisions. I might not always agree with those decisions, but it always has a good reason for them. People in this House have to vote as they feel and that is a matter for them. I am merely explaining how I feel.

Peter Bone: I have to take issue with some of those statements. Every vote in this House is a free vote. I have certainly received no instructions from my party on how to vote and I think that we are on a one-line Whip. I am not sure that there is a party view on this—we have heard different arguments across the political divide.

Philip Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to see our deputy Chief Whip in the Chamber to hear him say that every vote is a free vote. I am sure that that will not have gone unnoticed. Perhaps the Whips have given up on him in the way that they might well have given up on me. I am not entirely sure.
	I am sure that my party has good reasons for the way in which it asks its members to vote tonight. I am merely setting out what I think as well as the fact that I will not support the motion. For me, it is irrelevant what my party decides that it thinks is the right thing to do. In this House, we all have to do what we think is in the best interests of the country, of our constituents and of our party. The issue is much more important than has been given credence by many people.

Bob Spink: I just want to clarify something that was said a moment ago. In fact, there are not shades of opinion on both sides of the House. We have heard no negative opinion of the Government motion from the Labour Benches. In fact, every Labour Member who has spoken and intervened has been in favour of the Government motion.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman appears to be speculating that every Labour MP will support the Government. I do not know whether they will or not; that is a matter for them. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has the great advantage of being the only member of his party in this House, thus avoiding a split.

Bob Spink: In fact, I am not a member of any political party; I am a totally independent MP and therefore I speak and work for the people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We really are going wide of the motion before the House.

Philip Davies: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I was encouraging us to get off the beaten track. I was merely pointing out that there may well be views in all parties about this issue, but obviously, the UK Independence party does not have that disadvantage.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will answer the questions of why the UK Youth Parliament, and why just for this year. Will it set a precedent? What guarantees will he give that no other organisation will be allowed to use the Chamber? What promises can he give? What does he advise me to tell the members of other organisations in my constituency, who will see this and want to use the House of Commons Chamber? What arguments should I advance to tell them that it is not suitable for them, but it is for the UK Youth Parliament? I want to hear all these answers from him, because all those questions need answering.  [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the view of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) about the Labour party's voting has inspired the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), to come and make sure that everybody votes the way that he wants them to; I am not entirely sure.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that many Members have sat through two debates waiting to speak and have important points to make? Would it not be a disgrace to democracy and to the Youth Parliament if a closure motion were moved?

Philip Davies: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. He will know that I am trying to curtail my remarks, in order not to prevent other people from speaking in this—

Nick Brown: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 22.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you think that it sets a good example to members of the Youth Parliament that the Government have chosen to curtail debate in this Parliament on this issue?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The decision about the closure motion is for the occupant of the Chair.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 207.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mark Tami: then claimed the closure on the contingent  Question  (Standing Order No. 36(2)).
	 Main Question accordingly  put forthwith.

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and bring about social change; notes that many hon. Members from all parts of the House are actively involved in the work of the UK Youth Parliament; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed for this year alone to hold its 2009 annual meeting in the Chamber of this House.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am one of the two MPs who originally campaigned for the issue just decided; the other was the late Andrew Rowe. Obviously, I am delighted with the outcome of the vote. May I ask that the Speaker's Office and the Leader of the House be given the opportunity to speak with the organisers of the UK Youth Parliament to ensure that the processes and procedures that it uses respect the traditions of the House and enable the very best to come out of this outstanding and inspirational decision tonight?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members' remarks will be on the record, but I will ensure that Mr. Speaker's attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I put on the record the fact that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) did not participate in either of the two days of debate on this matter? It is a pity that he did not make his points during the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate. It is on the record.

Graham Brady: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us who attended the debates on the use of the Chamber were not able to speak because of the closure motion, but much of the argument has turned on the point of precedent. May I seek a ruling from Mr. Speaker in due course to the effect that a precedent has at least now been established? If the Chamber is to be used by bodies other than the elected House of Commons, we have established that that must follow a debate and vote of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are on the record, but I undertake to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to them.

DR. ADRIAN GARFOOT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mark Tami.)

Henry Bellingham: I wish to raise the case of my constituent, Dr. Adrian Garfoot, and to discuss in a little detail his dealings with the General Medical Council.
	Dr. Garfoot is a very distinguished constituent of mine; incidentally, the Reverend John Garfoot, his father, is a popular and well-known Methodist minister. Adrian trained at the Royal Free Hospital school of medicine and served as a GP in a number of locationsin Yarmouth, Sevenoaks and Kilburn. During that time, he became increasingly aware of and involved with the plight of drug users. He saw that many users and addicts were very sad figures and had often been rejected and failed by NHS treatment centres; I am talking about the 1970s and 1980s. There were long waiting lists. Many of the drug addicts became ever more ill and many ended up in prison.
	Tragically, quite a few of the young addicts with whom Adrian came into contact at that stage, when he was a GP, died from their addiction. He wanted to do something about it, so he decided to move from general practice to specialist drug treatment. Inevitably, that meant moving into the private sector, which he was reluctant to do. It was, however, the only way in which he could get involved with drug addicts from his position as a GP. As a result of his decision, the Laybourne clinic was born. It was launched in 1990 and after a while it moved into London docklands. I had the pleasure of visiting the clinic on a number of occasions. It soon became a centre of excellence and during its first 10 years it treated more than 1,200 patients, whose typical age was 37 and a halfsubstantially older than 29, which was the average age of patients in NHS drug clinics.
	The overwhelming majority of Dr. Garfoot's patients were long-term addicts who had been injecting themselves for between 20 and 30 years and maintaining their habit through crimes such as theft, burglary, dealing in drugs, prostitution and so on. Most had already spent lengthy periods in prison. At one point, it was calculated that 270 patients at the clinic had between them spent more than 600 years in prisona fairly staggering figure. Many had been committing up to four crimes a dayin other words, well over 1,000 crimes a year. However, it is interesting that the recidivism rate for drug addicts at the end of a treatment at the Laybourne clinic was only 7 per cent., whereas for those coming out of the prison system it was 54 per cent.
	Dr. Garfoot was rebuilding the lives of many people, dealing with serious medical conditions and restoring family relationships. He enabled those people to get on with a normal life and keep out of trouble. In fact, I worked out that during those 10 years he probably saved the country well over 10 million. Many testified that he actually saved their lives in the process.
	I want to mention some of the achievements of addicts who underwent treatment at the Laybourne clinic. One reformed addict ended up playing the violin in an orchestra; another founded a national charity; another completed an MA degree in computer studies at the age of 30; and two gained places at medical school. That is a fairly remarkable list of achievements.
	I should like to read out a tribute paid by Gary Sutton, who was one of the addicts treated at the Laybourne clinic. I met him on one of my visits to the clinic. His account refers to a particular occasion in 1996. A patient who was in the clinic with him at the time was being treated at St. Mary's hospital and discharged himself with a butterfly needle still in his arm. A few hours later, laboratory results were returned showing that he had a potentially life-threatening infection. The police were alerted and called to the patient's address, but were unable to find him. The hospital rang up Dr. Garfoot. As it was a Sunday morning, Dr. Garfoot was at his home, but he drove up to London and spent seven hours trying to track the patient down. He eventually found him and took him to Homerton hospital. The following day the consultant rang up Dr. Garfoot and personally commended and thanked him for saving this person's life.
	Dr. Garfoot had a prescribing policy that was based on harm reduction and non-coercive user-friendly protocols. Above all, he used his clinical judgment and independence. He put in place voluntary and supervised withdrawal programmes. It is interesting to examine the guidelines from the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. When it refers to injectable prescribing, it makes it clear that the recommended daily dosage is between 60 and 120 mg, which is within the effective therapeutic range. Certainly, what Dr. Garfoot was prescribing was within that limit. None of his patients died of any overdose, and there was no evidence whatsoever of diversion of drugs into the wider community. His philosophy was one of maintenance prescriptions with gradual reductions. Let us not forget that many of his patients had been on 12 or more failed oral treatment courses over periods of addiction of 20 to 25 years.
	It is worth looking at what the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse has said. According to Professor John Strang:
	The message for specialist clinicians is that yes, injectable heroin and injectable methadone have a role to play in the treatment of drug misusebut it's a limited role and one that needs to be developed very carefully.
	Its guidelines say that
	injectable maintenance treatment is most appropriate for long-term heroin addicts who have not responded to oral maintenance treatment
	and that
	where injectable heroin and methadone maintenance prescriptions are provided as part of a comprehensive treatment programme, both may have beneficial effects on health, social functioning and crime reduction.
	That sums up what Dr. Garfoot was doing.
	It is also telling to have a look at the 2008 drugs strategy. Page 6 mentions the need to
	make sure we are supporting the treatment that is most effective, targeted on the right userswith abstinence-based treatment for some, drug-replacement over time for others, and innovative treatments including injectable heroin and methadone where they have been proved to work and reduce crime.
	In Dr. Garfoot's day, the officially preferred and enforced treatment was low-threshold, short reduction therapy. He was struck off for higher-dose long-term maintenance treatment and injectable prescribing, which is now sanctioned. I will come on to his being struck off in a moment, but it is worth pointing out that what he was doing during his years running the clinic was very much in line with current drugs policy, as outlined in the 2008 strategy.
	As I have mentioned, there was no evidence whatever of any diversion of drugs during Dr. Garfoot's time running the clinic. He was always incredibly assiduous in preventing the diversion of prescribed drugs to the wider community. That was recognised on a number of occasions when he clashed with the authorities. There were complaints back in 1992, and later there were further allegations. He was summoned before a Home Office misuse of drugs tribunal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on charges of alleged irresponsible prescribing. There was even a raid on the Laybourne clinic, but after analysis of 1,500 prescriptions there was no sign of any discrepancy whatever. Dr. Garfoot was cleared by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and there was also a finding of abuse of process against his accusers.
	At that stage Dr. Garfoot took the view that he would be left alone, but unfortunately it was not to be. In 2000, the interim orders committee of the General Medical Council imposed serious restrictions on Dr. Garfoot after a number of a complaints against him. He was then taken to the professional conduct committee of the GMC on 11 September 2001a date that none of us will ever forget, for other, tragic reasons. The finding was that he should be erased from the medical register on the grounds of serious professional misconduct. He decided to appeal to the Privy Council, and lost. I do not want to go into great detail about the GMC's findings. Suffice it to say that it agreed that he had believed that he was acting in the best interests of his patients. It also agreed that there had been no diversion of drugs and accepted that no one had died of an overdose while under his care.
	In due course, the clinic closed. What happened was obviously a disaster for Dr. Garfoot, and I shall turn to that in a moment, but it was an even bigger disaster for the many patients of the clinic. It carried on for a while after Dr. Garfoot left, but it was unable to continue to provide the same level of treatment. A number of patients left, and six of them have subsequently died. Many others have gone back into a life of crime and prostitution and back on to the conveyor belt that leads to crime, inadequate treatment and back to crime again. What has happened is a tragedy, because many of the adults and youngsters concerned had nowhere to go once the clinic had closed down.
	It is worth briefly examining the wider drug situation in the UK, as it puts into perspective the work that Dr. Garfoot was doing. The cost to the UK of drug abuse is absolutely massive. I have had a look at a York university study that puts the total annual cost at 19 billion, which is 850 for each household in the UK. I know that that might not sound a vast amount of money given the billions being thrown at the bank bail-out scheme, but it is a very large amount. It includes the cost of drug-related crime, which comes to 12 billion, and the extra burden on the police, prisons and the NHS. Interestingly, the study also found that 99 per cent. of that cost was caused by a hardcore group of roughly 280,000 users. That puts the nature of the problem into perspective.
	I wish to say a word or two about Dr. Garfoot himself and what has happened to him since. He has been unemployed since he was erased from the register. He has been lost to the profession. I also feel that he has been extraordinarily unfortunate because his case was heard on 11 September 2001 and, since then, the rules have changed.
	An amendment to the Medical Act 1983 was made in 2000 in statutory instrument No. 1803, which came into force on 3 August 2001. It provided that a 10-month suspension would be replaced by a five-year suspension. Of course, that was the Government's response to the Shipman disaster. The minimum period of suspensionerasurewas previously 10 months, but was increased by the then Secretary of State for Health to five years.
	It is interesting to note that, on 2 November 1998 and again on 10 January 2000, Dr. Garfoot was supplied with a copy of procedure rules, which were dated July 1997, on which proceedings against him would be conducted. Paragraph 28 stated that
	a direction to erase remains effective unless and until the doctor makes a successful application for restoration to the Register. Such an application cannot be made until at least 10 months have elapsed since the original order took effect.
	Paragraph 30 states:
	Application for restoration may legally be made at any time after 10 months.
	Dr. Garfoot was not informed of that until after his appeal to the Privy Council was heard. In other words, the proceedings against him in 1998 and 2000 were conducted under the unamended 1983 legislationthe statutory instrument did not come into force until 3 August 2001.
	Through me, Dr. Garfoot contacted the then Home Office Minister concerned, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). In his reply, the Minister said that although there was a provision for exempting doctors who had submitted applications for exemption before 3 August, there was no such provision for doctors whose cases were in progress at the given date. I believe that that is incredibly unfairthe goalposts were moved while the process was continuing. It is not only unfair but arguably a breach of article 7 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
	No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
	Of course, we are not considering a criminal offence, but the GMC professional conduct committee made it clear that it was applying criminal standards of proof. Dr. Garfoot was unfortunate in the timing of the statutory instrument. He takes the view that he and a small handful of other doctors should not have been treated in that way and that some extra flexibility should have been shown.
	I have spoken about Dr. Garfoot's marvellous work, the lives that he saved and the small part that he played in trying to tackle the UK drugs crisis. I want now to refer to a couple of matters that relate to the GMC. Last year, Dr. Garfoot applied for reinstatement, and the hearing took place on 10 March 2008. Before attending the hearing, he was advised that he should not try to challenge the judgment of the original case. He assumed that the outdated Form S148, which had been sent to him some time previously, still stood. It stated:
	In the eyes of the law, and of the Professional Conduct Committee, you were guilty of the charge found proved against you. There is no point in arguing to the Professional Conduct Committee that the decision to erase your name was a mistake.
	He arrived at the hearing unrepresented, while the GMC had a top barrister to represent its interests. I question whether there should be an effective inequality of arms in such a tribunal. Dr. Garfoot could not afford legal help, yet the GMC had a battery of lawyers to help it.
	He had no wish to delve into the past, but fully anticipated that the GMC very much would want to. He was shocked, as well as totally unprepared, when two of the four pages of the panel's determination amounted to a rehash of the PCC's original determination from September 2001 and the reasons given by the Privy Council for dismissing his appeal in May 2002.
	The barrister had been instructed by the GMC with the specific intention of putting Dr. Garfoot down and thus presented in his speech a completely one-sided view of Dr. Garfoot's work and his philosophy. When Dr. Garfoot realised what was going on and wanted to put his side of the story, so as to explain his work to the panelto talk about the patients whose lives he had saved, those whom he had saved from prison and those whose lives he had saved from spiralling out of controlhe was told by the GMC that he could not put that part of his argument. He was then silenced quite disgracefully by the chairman, who cut off his microphone. That was an unfortunate state of affairs in March 2008.
	I would like to pick up on a couple of the points that the panel put to Dr. Garfoot. One of the complaints against him, which was also one of the reasons he could not be reinstated, was that he had not had enough recent practical experience, such as attending at a surgery or using new IT systems. As it happens, it is difficult for any GP who has been struck off to get any practical experience. Dr. Garfoot wrote to his postgraduate tutor and asked whether he could sit in on his surgery, but the offer was withdrawn shortly before the practical experience was about to take place.
	It is difficult for any GP to keep up to date with medical knowledge without hands-on clinical experience. As for experiencing new IT systems, the British Medical Association runs courses for that purpose, but they are open only to doctors registered with the GMC. Therefore, although Dr. Garfoot did his level best to keep in touchhe did a great deal of reading and a lot of work on the internet, as well as talking to many of his former colleagues in practicehe was told by the panel that he had not done enough to keep his skills up to date. That reinforces the point that if he had been able to reapply for reinstatement after 10 months, the chances are that those criticisms would not have applied.
	There is another point that I would like the Minister to have a quick look at, because it could be within his jurisdiction, so to speak. Apparently, the panel had no power to impose conditions on Dr. Garfoot's re-registrationindeed, it made that point to him. He argued that he had no intention of going back into drugs treatment, even though that is where his heart lies. Having gone through the experience that he did with Laybourne, all the heartache of the misuse of drugs tribunals, and eventually the hearings before the GMC and the appeal to the Privy Council, he realises that it would not be right for him to go back into treating drug addicts.
	However, Dr. Garfoot wanted to go back into general practice. Even if he could not have been accepted in a local doctor's surgery in my constituency, there could have been many other opportunities, such as working as a locum or an adviser to companies doing medical assessments in the private sector. A host of opportunities was available to him, but unfortunately the panel said that it could not re-register him with conditions. In many ways, the panel would have liked to say, We will allow you to become reinstated, but the condition is that you can't go back to treating drug addicts. However, the panel was unable to do that.
	Will the Minister sit down with the GMC and discuss that? It is not just my constituent Dr. Garfoot who is affected. We are talking about 100 or so doctors who have been struck off in this period and 40 or 50 doctors who have been struck off, suspended or erased for similar instances of alleged misconduct in the field of drug treatment as those involving Dr. Garfoot. There is a large pool of talent out there. It might not be appropriate for some of those doctors to be reinstated, but some certainly want to be reinstated. Some of them are even anxious to be reinstated, yet they have no chance whatever of succeeding in that. Dr. Garfoot will be reapplying this year and I will do my best to support him. I know that other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who has also looked into the case very carefully, will be doing the same.
	My next point on the GMC relates to its use of draft determinations and predetermined sentences of erasure. It has now been admitted by the GMC's own solicitors that the assistant registrar, who was also the secretary of the professional conduct committee, would either write or direct clerks to write draft determinations some weeks prior to the professional conduct committee sitting. The draft would then be handed by the committee secretary to the chairman and the panel to be read out as the final determination. In these cases, the draft also contained the predetermined sentence of erasure, which basically means that many of these hearings were effectively a complete sham.
	I have looked into a number of other cases, as well as Dr. Garfoot's. It was interesting to have a close look at the GMC paperwork in Dr. Garfoot's case. The findings are listed by way of a decision. One should note that, at that point, the panel concluded for the day. On the following day, there was the mitigation and then the panel read out the determination, which bore very little relation to the decision. Exactly the same pattern of eventsthe use of draft determinations and predetermined sentences of erasurehappened in the case of Dr. Jennifer Colman. As it happens, she is not my constituent, but I have met her in Norfolk; she is a resident of mid-Norfolk. It was the same in the case of Dr. Hickey.
	I have to say that I find this quite extraordinary. Here we have a very important and prestigious professional body predetermining the outcomes of professional hearings. That seems to me to be quite staggering. Another case, known as the Munday case, went right up to the House of Lords, and it was held that a magistrates clerk should not retire with magistrates. In the case of the GMC, the clerks were retiring, and in the earlier case they dealt with the screening process, the intermediate process of preliminary proceedings and then sat as committee secretaries on the PCC, as well as drafting the draft determinations that ended up as the final determination. It is certainly worth looking at that case, which has governed the way in which many other professional organisations operate. Clearly, something has gone very badly wrong.
	Is the Minister aware that the GMC's professional conduct committee was operating by using predetermined recommended sanctions, including erasure, during the 1990s? Is he aware that those draft determinations were written by assistant registrars weeks before the hearings? Does he approve of that practice and does he know whether it is still in operation? Does he agree that if that was indeed happeningwe have no reason to believe otherwise, as that is what the GMC's own solicitors are telling usit surely represents a breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights on the right to a fair trial. That right is not only laid down and encapsulated in that convention, but is part of our own law as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998.
	I would be grateful if the Minister answered those questions about the GMC, as they are pretty fundamental. Here we have a hugely prestigious and important organisation, sitting in judgment on the lives of its members. I have looked at the workings of a number of professional bodies, which obviously have to adopt the highest possible standards of procedure. It is essential that they do so to maintain the confidence of the profession. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the GMC has behaved and is behaving in this way in a number of cases, it is most certainly a complete breach of natural justicenever mind the European convention on human rights and our own human rights legislation. I also put it to you that the treatment of Dr. Garfoot at the reinstatement hearing was a complete disgrace, particularly when the chairman cut him off from expressing his point of viewanother breach of natural justice.
	I have spoken at some length because I want to put on the record the work done by my constituent, and his passionate commitment to people suffering from drug abuse at a time when this country has an appalling problem with drug addiction and drug abuse. The sadness is that since the clinic closed, many of those patients have returned to a life of crime; some have even died. Many patients who might have gone to the clinic and been treated have not been able to do so. I wonder how many other doctors are in the same position as Dr. Garfoot, who could have played a vital part under the 2008 drugs strategy in improving the lives of many hundreds of peopleand surely, at a time when there is a critical shortage of doctors in some parts of the country, it is not a good use of resources to prevent such doctors from being reinstated.
	I hope that the Minister will answer my questions. I also hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the doctors in this country who work so incredibly hard to help drug addicts. It is not a fashionable part of medical practice, but, day in day out, those doctors are putting their careers on the line, saving lives, working extremely hard to make other people's lives better and helping this country in the war against the total evil that is the drugs trade, which leads to drug addiction, drug abuse and the ruining of young lives.

Brian Iddon: Dr. Adrian Garfoot came to my notice almost immediately when I arrived in Parliament in 1997. In the summer of that year, a young boy hit not just the national but the international headlines. Dillon Hull, aged five, was shot dead in my constituency in August 1997. The bandits were actually after his father, who owed a considerable amount of money for the heroin that he had been selling, but unfortunately Dillon copped it instead.
	The event in that summer was felt by the whole nation, and, as I have said, became an international event. It precipitated me into the drugs debate. I had 12 years' experience of research on opiates through my students at the University of Salford, so I knew something about the subject professionally as well. Given that I had been elected a Member of Parliament and given my professional background, it was inevitable that  The Guardian, The World This Weekend and a number of other television and radio shows would ask me to contribute to the debates that raged after Dillon Hull was tragically shot. That is how I came to the notice of people such as Adrian Garfoot, who wanted to explain to me what they were doing.
	It should be borne in mind that those times were different from these, just 12 years later. I would not say that there was nowhere for chaotic drug addicts to go in the 1980s and early 1990s, but it was extremely difficult for them to obtain treatment. It is difficult for some people today, but I dare say that that is partly their fault because they have not accepted that they are ready for treatment. At that time, even those who desperately wanted treatment and begged people such as me to find it for them could not obtain it. I have seen no such cases in the last five or six years, but in 1997 and 1998 parents came to me begging me to help their sonsusually sons, but sometimes daughtersto obtain treatment, here, there or anywhere. That was before the Government established the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. Thank goodness, things are very much better today.
	I had the impression that Dr. Adrian Garfoot was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and so were a lot of doctors like him. He was unconventional in the way in which he treated people, but he was treating the most chaotic heroin addicts in London and in the home counties, for people travelled some distances to see him at the Laybourne clinic.
	I was suspicious, thinking that this was a private clinic and that Dr. Garfoot might have been in it just to make money, but I soon realised that money was not the driving force behind his life. He had an almost missionary role, and felt for those people, with whom no one else wanted to deal. The national health service certainly did not want them. General practitioners did not want them anywhere near their surgeries. But someone had to deal with them, and one of those people was Adrian Garfoot. I remember him telling me some stories. He sometimes worked late at night, and he told me a dreadful story about a young man coming at him swinging an axe. He was able to deal with people such as that, but it is little wonder that other general practitioners did not want to deal with them.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on bringing Adrian Garfoot to our attention this evening. He managed to stabilise all his patients. Their chaotic lives became almost normalalthough not quite normal in most cases. Some of his patients were stabilised on injectable heroin and then oral heroin, andbelieve it or notthey were able to work; a lot of his patients went back to work. He also brought families back together again. Wives had to try to live with chaotic husbands. Families separated, but he managed to bring them back together. I thought that he had an almost missionary zeal. Sadly, however, one of his patients then died, and that incident came to the attention of the General Medical Council. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, Dr. Gurfut's relapse rate was extremely low, whereas in other areas of treatment in this country at that time, relapse rates were exceedingly high. That must have said something about what Dr. Adrian Garfoot was doing at the time. I was convinced he was doing a good job, therefore, despite this tragic death. That did not surprise me, in view of the kind of patients he was dealing with. It seemed inevitable that there would be a patient death at the Laybourne clinic among the 1,200 patients he was dealing with at that time.
	There was no ready access to public treatment for drug addiction then, so quite a number of private doctors were operating. I thought some of them deserved to be struck off. A few of themperhaps more than a few of themwere in it to make money. I do not think Adrian Garfoot was one of those people, however. That is why I say that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was convinced, therefore, that I had to go and defend him at the GMC hearing. It lasted 35 minutes or soI cannot remember how long, but it seemed an eternity. The people who were sat around were all ologists of one kind or anothergynaecologists and so forth. However, while talking to them I got the impression that they did not really know the world that Dr. Adrian Garfoot had been living in. Therefore, I was not surprised that the GMC at that time struck him off. I did think, however, that it was due to a misunderstanding andlet me repeat for the third timedue to the fact that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He has truly suffered over the past 12 years or so, and I plead with the Minister to have a look at this case and, perhaps, to have a word with the GMC, because we are talking about a man who is committed to medicine and who has done his best to re-educate himselfalthough I have not talked to him very recently. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the case of Adrian Garfoot in particular.

Ben Bradshaw: Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this further debate on the case of Dr. Adrian Garfoot and the General Medical Council.
	My Department's Clinical Guidelines and Models of Care guidance promote a range of drug treatments by those competent to prescribe, and the Government fully support appropriate clinical freedom within the constraints of the independent mechanisms to regulate professional practice. The GMC is responsible for regulating medical practice, and its primary purpose is to protect the public. That principle was reaffirmed last year by Members on both sides of the House during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. It is important to make clear at the outset that the GMC is an independent statutory body, and that it is not directly accountable to Ministers.
	The hon. Gentleman has understandably concerned himself with the case of Dr. Garfoot, and I commend him for the detail of his research and the care he has taken in preparing for this debate. May I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), too? I have the greatest regard for him and he speaks a great deal of sense on drug issues in general.
	The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will be aware that Dr. Garfoot's situation was the subject of a debate in June 2003, as well as being cited as a case in point in several others: in March 2001, November 2001 and January 2005. It should not be and is not the Government's job to take sides in such a dispute. I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of the case; indeed, it would be wrong for me to do so. The determination of Dr. Garfoot's fitness to practise was a matter for the GMC's fitness to practise panel, and those tasked with adjudicating in medical fitness to practise hearings have to make a judgment about the appropriateness of clinical interventions in the face of competing evidence and competing professional views. Their decisions are often extremely difficult, as there is often competing evidence and a range of views about appropriate clinical practice. In this case, those differing views have been well-aired.
	When cases relate to the appropriateness of a clinical judgment, a fitness to practise panel has to make a judgment about whether a doctor is applying good medical practice in comparison with the norm in that specialty. In highly specialised practices, such as the treatment of older drug users, that judgment might be more complicated, but it was the clear finding of the panel that Dr. Garfoot's practice was impaired at the time. Let me quote from the finding of 11 September 2001:
	The Committee found that he had irresponsibly prescribed drugs of addiction and dependence to 12 patients between 1996 and 1999.
	That followed the previous finding that those
	12 patients all displayed a pattern of excessive treatments, mostly over several years. Some patients became dependent on drugs which they had not taken regularly before.
	The later ruling found that
	his pattern of clinical management and attitude to the need for his own education fell far short of the standard expected of a medical practitioner.
	That took place at the hearing at which Dr. Garfoot's name was erased from the register. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk rightly said, Dr. Garfoot then went on to appeal to the Privy Council. On 19 June, the Privy Council dismissed his appeal against erasure, stating that
	the circumstances of the case were so serious that the order of erasure was entirely appropriate and inevitable and...there was no basis to justify setting it aside.
	The Medical Act 1983, as amended by the Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000, states that no application for restoration of a name to the register can be made to the professional conduct committee until five years from the date of erasure. Also, if an application has already been made and rejected, another application cannot be made for a further 12 months. That order took effect on 3 August 2000, which means that any doctor whose name was erased on or after that date must wait for five years before they can apply for restoration.
	Dr. Garfoot applied for restoration at the end of the initial five-year period. His application was heard in March 2008, when he informed the panel that he had reflected on his prescribing practices and that he now considered them to have been ridiculous. He also accepted the need to undertake further training in order to return to practice. However, the fitness to practise panel refused his application. In summing up, it remained very concerned about his lack of insight into general and fundamental problems and his failure to keep records, to monitor or review treatment and to keep his knowledge and skills up to date. He became eligible to reapply for restoration last week, on 10 March.
	As I said, the new rules about applications for restoration raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk came into force on 3 August 2000. The 2000 order included transitional arrangements for applications and the effect of those transitional arrangements was that the new rules applied unless erasure had already taken place by 3 August, even if the allegations related to an earlier time. That was the case even if the GMC had already started proceedings. The amendment therefore takes effect from the date that the decision is made and not the date on which the alleged incident or incidents took place. In Dr. Garfoot's case, his name was not erased from the register until 26 June 2002 and so it was clear that the new rules applied to him.
	The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the dual function that the GMC used to have of hearing and adjudicating on processes. The GMC provides clear and concise guidance for doctors on restoration following erasure by a fitness to practise panel, and that guidance is published on its website. The criticism that the GMC faced during the Shipman inquiry led to the putting in place of new procedures in 2004. However, we believed that public and professional confidence in the system of regulation had already been undermined. The GMC was quick to recognise that reform was needed to change that perception, and to do so it made significant changes, including moving towards an internal separation of its investigation and adjudication functions. However, given the level of
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.( Mark Tami.)

Ben Bradshaw: However, given the level of public concern, the Government felt that the creation of an office of the health professions adjudicator would send a strong signal to the profession and the public that decisions regarding a doctor's fitness to practise should be impartial and independent of those who investigate. We legislated to create the office of the health professions adjudicator in last year's Health and Social Care Bill, and we expect it to be fully up and running by 2011.
	As I have already stated, Dr. Garfoot became eligible to reapply on 10 March. I understand from the GMC that he has not so far done so, but that would be the next step if he wants to get back on the register.

Henry Bellingham: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and for some of the points that he has made, which are very helpful. Does he agree that it seems inflexible and too rigid for the GMC, in a reinstatement hearing, not to be able to reinstatebut with conditions? Obviously, its main concern inDr. Garfoot's case is not his suitability as a GP, but the way in which he ran the Laybourne clinic.

Ben Bradshaw: I was just about to come to that, and I shall certainly reflect on the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and write to him in more detail about it. My understanding is that, if the GMC were able to do what he suggests it should, the problem would be that it refuses applications for initial registration where there is evidence that the applicant's fitness to practise may be impaired. Therefore, it would not be consistent to make provisions for restoring an applicant to the register with conditions if he or she would be refused registration in the same circumstances at initial registration. It would be unfair to those people who have to prove that they are completely fit to practise for the initial registration.
	The council discussed erasure and restoration in November 1999 and agreed an important principle:
	Doctors who have been erased have been excluded from the profession indefinitely. Only exceptionally will any doctor be restored to the register following erasure.
	The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East also raised the general issue of wider drugs policy. Both recognised that we have come a long way in the past 12 years or so in improving both provision and the general approach taken to helping drug addicts manage their addictions. We have increased substantially the number of people entering drug treatment, and the proportion of those who are receiving treatment that is having a long-term, positive impact in tackling their addiction continues to rise year on year. More than 202,000 people received treatment in 2007-08 138 per cent. more than in 1998, when the figure was 85,000, and well in excess of our previous drug strategy public service agreement target, which was to double the number by 2008. We are keeping 78 per cent. of people in treatment for at least 12 weekswe believe that that is an indicator of treatment effectiveness, with evidence showing that treatment of at least that length has a lasting, positive impact in tackling an individual's addictionwhich is 3 per cent. more than in 2006-07. Collectively, that has led to improvements in the lives not only of the drug user but of the wider community, with drug-related deaths lower now than they were in 2000, following a doubling in the 1990s. Drug-related crime has also fallen by 22 per cent. since 2003.
	We have raised a number of difficult issues today. There were a couple of detailed points that the hon. Gentleman raised that I am afraid I have not managed to respond to, but I promise to write to him about them

Henry Bellingham: rose

Ben Bradshaw: Unless the hon. Gentleman can remind me of them now.

Henry Bellingham: The key point was the use by the GMC of draft determinations and predetermined sentences of erasure. If the Minister wrote to me about that, I would be very grateful, because it is probably the most important recent development.

Ben Bradshaw: I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman. My officials did send me a helpful note on that, but it was not quite helpful enough for me to use. Either I did not understand it properly, or I did not think it a comprehensive answer to the point that he was making.
	It is important that we all focus on what matters most: the protection of the public and patient safety. Public protection and patient safety require robust systems of professional regulation. In 2007, we published our White Paper Trust, Assurance and Safety, which set out our intention to establish a new independent body to adjudicate in medical fitness to practise cases. There is often a difficult judgment call to be made about the acceptable degree of risk associated with certain forms of treatment. We believe, therefore, that it is right and proper that these judgments are made by a body that is independent of the individual and of the profession.
	In future, there will be a clear separation between the GMC's investigation function and its decision-making process, and that separation of adjudication will ensure that there is no perception of bias on the part of the decision maker for or against medical practitioners. Although we have no reason to doubt the GMC's processes, independent adjudication will address the perception of bias in some quarters. Independent adjudication can only be seen as a positive development in cases such as Dr. Garfoot's, where competing opinions about the appropriateness of clinical intervention need to be weighed up.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.